This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I liked what you did with them. I would reformat the Interleague part on the template. It seems more emphasis is given to the Subway Series matchups than the others in my opinion and I am not sure how to code that properly to make that better. The Jays-Expos rivalry seems to have undue weight, especially given that it doesn't even exist anymore. I had left the Toronto-Montreal rivalry article out of it because the Pearson Cup was more relevant and the TO-Mon rivalry article was more generic. It's worth discussing though. As for the Subway Series section, I wouldn't necessarily put all of those Yankee rivalry articles together there because the Yankees-Dodgers rivalry went well beyond the Subway Series. That too is worth talking abou though. Regardless of those things, great work and thank you. Arnabdas ( talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The template is about the entire Simpsons franchise. As such, it makes sense for links to both The Simpsons and the franchise to be at the top, rather than having one buried down near the bottom. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
( Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠ TomasBat 01:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop fixing links to redirects that aren't broken. — KV5 • Talk • 01:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{ Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{ User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to put in the Yankees history as a subgroup in the rivalry templates? You did so with the Giants and Dodgers, so it makes sense to do so for the Yankees in the rivalry templates with those two teams. I am also going to take out the team out of the template if it is not about them e.g. take out Los Angeles Dodgers out of Yankees-Giants rivalry, because the template of the rivalry of the Yankees-Giants doesnt belong on the Dodger homepage and vice versa...only the rivalry articles themselves should be linked (Yankees-Dodgers, Mets-Yankees), not the articles of the team not mentioned. Arnabdas ( talk) 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this topic, User:Muboshgu and I are having a discussion on his page about it. You may want to take a look because it involves the templates you created. Arnabdas ( talk) 19:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think having one would be very useful. Key series, the 4 teams, the 3 rivalries (but we can also link the Dodgers-Giants), related articles, etc. Readers would be able to navigate through them well. The template would be on:

• All Subway World Series
• Interleague
• The four teams
• The rivalry articles between them all
• NY histories of the four teams
• Ballparks

You're far more proficient at coding templates than I and have done a great job at them. I figure I would leave it to your good work. Arnabdas ( talk) 21:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, please STOP adding bits about the death of the curse everywhere. It's totally out of proportion, and violating the undue weight principles. umrguy 42 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note I have reverted your redirect of this article. Since it is being discussed at an AfD, it is probably better to wait until the AfD is completed. My best to you. ttonyb ( talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I know the rivalry as well as anyone. The problem to me is that, aside from being two western Canadian teams, there is nothing that separates this from Flames-Avs or Canucks-Wild. It is a just a divisional rivalry. If it is going to be argued as something more, then there has to be more than "these two teams met in the playoffs on these dates, and both were good on these overlapping years." Otherwise, a lot of synthesis is required to build the article. If you have sources better than that, then go nuts. Otherwise I just don't see the value.

If anything, a lot of these could be more valuable on the ice hockey Wikia, where team x vs. team y pages could be quite useful. Just my POV, of course. Cheers! Reso lute 03:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason you are making edits like this, which change online articles to supposed "print" versions, and changing page numbers? I don't see that's it's productive. — KV5 • Talk • 23:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SNIyer12. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page.
Message added 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's practically a regional rivarly, and it's only claim to notability is being that both teams come from Pennsylvania. – BuickCentury Driver 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the page would have a chance of surviving the notability test. It's like the so-called "Battle of the Sox" (Chicago vs. Boston) where the only notable series was the 2005 ALDS. If we wrote an article about the history of this matchup, the article would likely not survive AFD. Another example was Tampa Bay vs Boston. Even though these two teams battled to an epic semifinal in 2008 the page on the rivalry was voted to deletion. So if you really want to write an article about the Keystone rivalry, you might have to wait until both teams meet in the postseason. And with the way the Pirates are playing that doesn't seem to be happening anytime soon. – BuickCentury Driver 02:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a start. – BuickCentury Driver 05:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Demeaning Chants of 1918!.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{ non-free fair use in|article name that the file is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 14:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, SNIyer12. You have new messages at Umrguy42's talk page.
Message added 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for uploading File:John Tortorella-Game 7 of 2004 Stanley Cup Finals.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PrincessAuroraSleeping.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss this with you. You cited the Forbes article and I read it carefully to respond. I'm willing to hear you out. But you must respond to what I say as well if we're going to have a discussion. Ultimahero ( talk) 01:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since we're both on now, can we go to the MLB rivalries talk page and discuss this? 
Ultimahero (
talk) 
01:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Football League rivalries. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Artichoker ^talk 05:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Artichoker and I have been discussing this issue on my talk page. If you're interested please take a look. Ultimahero ( talk) 05:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of the logo on that page does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c. Please follow WP:FURG before attempting to re-add the logo to that article. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A few additional comments - it needs some rewrites for encyclopedic tone (especially in the lede). Also, the "death of the Curse" bit does NOT belong there - it's completely irrelevant to the article. Finally, and most importantly, it needs more references than box scores. I suggest you look for more references that actually discuss the rivalry. umrguy 42 16:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion for something I'd like to see (properly sourced) would be an article on the Cards-Mets rivalry in the 1980s, if there's enough material. umrguy 42 16:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up - I'm concerned that calling Astros-Cards and Cards-Reds "rivalries" based mainly on both teams contending for division titles in recent years may violate WP:RECENT. With team turnover, and rise and fall in abilities, it's not so much (to my thinking) a true, on-going rivalry, as a temporary thing, especially when you compare it to an obvious rivalry, like Cards-Cubs, which goes no matter how each team is doing. umrguy 42 17:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

By all means, if there's more to Cards-Reds, absolutely - like I said, I just thought it needed to be more than "last year Brandon Philips said stuff, and the Cards responded, and there was a brawl, and both teams were in contention". I still have concern about Cards-Astros, though, especially in terms of being used in the lede of the Cardinals article. I think the primary rivalry, and probably only one that should be mentioned there, is Cards-Cubs - the others come and go, even if there is more historical nature to them. umrguy 42 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with User:Ultimahero at this point - Cards-Astros was more division realignment + both teams vying for the division lead for a couple years. Seriously, you don't hear much about it right now, as the Astros have fallen to the back of the pack (and the Cards may follow). I have currently removed it from the lede section of the Cardinals article, but would not be averse to its discussion (I think it may already be there) in the section on the 2000s. umrguy 42 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the source may have been there but it was not indicating the part I removed. Plus, it is a source that cannot be verified online so I could not check. Ultimahero ( talk) 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey I just wanted to let you know that I added a bunch of stuff to the MLB rivalries page if you're still interested in it. Ultimahero ( talk) 20:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I broke the three rivalries that were being disputed (Cubs/Brewers, Cardinals/Astros, Mets/Braves) into three separate categories to try and simplify things. Also, I went through the recent divisional history and compiled how many "competitive" seasons these teams have had. Hopefully it helps. Ultimahero ( talk) 22:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add any rivalries to the page can you please put it on the talk page first and let the community discuss it first? Ultimahero ( talk) 01:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)