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. |
AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Just created the article. Thanks for the suggestion. - PM800 ( talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The basic principle that Mr. Stradivarius is getting at is that an article that is merged cannot be deleted unless the article it is merged into is deleted. This is to maintain the required attribution. On a related note, I just checked University of Florida Career Resource Center and you did everything required, but it would be nice if you'd use {{ Copied}} in the future. It works well for showing the history of the merge (better than digging through the edit history) and it explains why the merged article can't be deleted. Ryan Vesey 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In my second diff, you said that there was a "relatively trivial difference between a redirect and deletion at this point" after you had merged content from the nominated article into the proposed redirect target. However, I believe that if you had been aware of the licensing issues involved in deleting the attribution history of the merged content, then you wouldn't have seen deletion and redirection as equally worthwhile options.
This is an important policy point to understand for admins involved in deletion, but I didn't think it was worth opposing over. That's because once you understand the principles involved, you understand them, and I have every reason to believe that if I pointed them out to you then you would understand them and bear them in mind in your deletion work. I hope this explains things a bit better, but please do ask if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would have spoken up sooner, but I didn't realize the RFA had opened yet. I have your talk page on my watchlist and assumed something would be posted there. Anyway, better late than never, and good luck with the RFA process. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my edit to Auburn–Florida football rivalry:
I think that the overall series record next to each game is important and not clutter. I’d rather discuss this issue with you, rather than reverting your revert, e.g., avoiding an edit war.
I looked through a number of other sports rivalries and found that two of the other Auburn rivalries, Deep South's Oldest Rivalry and the Iron Bowl (Auburn- Alabama, both have overall series records listed next to each game. To go further, I noticed that the Magnolia Bowl, the Egg Bowl, the Third Saturday in October, and the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry pages, just to name a few in the SEC, have series records in their charts. Now I am not saying that those need to be changed to not having series records listed in the charts, but what I am meaning is that a consensus needs to be reached as to how the tables are across Wikipedia. A question I would like to pose is, how does the overall series record constitute clutter?
Basketball123456 ( talk) 00:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you perhaps give more input on the DragoLink08 situation and the consequent rangeblock for the University of South Florida? I've just gotten a message from Hflw27, who says "I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering". I'm going to leave a message on his talk page explaining that I implemented the rangeblock on others' recommendations, that I don't really know how to help, and that I'll ask others to help him; if you can help, please respond at his talk page. Please note that you're not the only one I'm asking; I'm leaving this message for five other users who commented on Drago's situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, as well as you. Nyttend ( talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
ATTENTION User:Nascarking has just reverted your edit on the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry page. The series records are back!!! Basketball123456 ( talk) 03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, if you add a template to a discussion, you need to tag it for deletion. It's very important to follow the correct procedure, or the TfD result might be considered invalid. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Check back in at your convenience. — Bagumba ( talk) 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to stop by whenever you want. Hopefully, things will work out for you. RFA is an interesting experience, no? :) Zagalejo ^^^ 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No problems, whichever way it goes feel free to pester me all you want! Giant Snowman 08:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
My sincere sympathies on the sheer nonsense you have been subjected to with the recent turn of events in your RfA. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
Just a heads up—there lately has been extraordinarily tight enforcement of the discretionary sanctions arising from the arbcom case WP:ARBATC. In particular, this seems well-within what some editors have already been sanctioned, or at least hauled off to AE, for. HaugenErik ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
OK; well it doesn't look like this is going to turn out as planned, but I commend you for trying and for still being an overall great editor. I hope this doesn't put you off and that you'll consider a run in the future. Respectfully, Go Phightins ! 02:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
The Surreal Barnstar | ||
I decided this was the most appropriate given the absolutely surreal nature of your RFA and the Salvador Dali-esque nature of some of the opposes. While I'm not questioning the close, I think the community's direction on this one was way off base with regard to WP:AGF and WP:DEAL. I've said it before - we allow existing admins the right to be occasionally human (as we should) but expect admin candidates to be near-perfect demi-gods. Frustrating, but I'm sure you'll continue to be effective without lightning bolt in hand. Stalwart 111 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Dirtlawyer1. I'm sorry to inform you, but I've closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Given that a majority of the community did support you, I would suggest you look to the opposition as areas you can grow further in as an editor and consider seeking adminship at a later date. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Np, I'm glad that I supported your RFA but really sad to know that it didn't go so well. I hope it will be better next time when you try to improve more from the comments (especially from oppose sections) you have received during this RFA. Good luck. Torreslfchero ( talk) 11:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
You might want to consider brushing up on your Gator football knowledge with the following subjects if you believe these trophies are insignificant in the context of the rivalry games of the Gators:
Enjoy! NThomas ( talk) 12:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. The purpose of links are to assist readers with something they might be unfamiliar with. You are also incorrect in your idea that two links go to the same term. Just using the wiktionary definition, a term is "word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge". In this instance, we have two terms going to the same article. Nothing in OVERLINK or REPEATLINK advises against that. Ryan Vesey 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
RFA is a dirty business, don't worry about a bad result. Carrite ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me... review me... 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I would think Cbl62 would be better at that than I. I rarely venture away from football and basketball for U of M athletes. He has much more experience researching the broader history of Michigan Wolverines.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
C mach 7 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Drago has found himself a new IP (or possible IP range...I guess we'd have to see if more crop up). I was alerted to 108.33.96.224 when he edited {{ 1946 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball navbox}}, which I have on my watchlist because of DragoLink08. Who is the best in-the-know admin to get to block this IP? Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I took care of it, 3 months. Secret account 05:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dirtlawyer,
Thanks for your messages. I appreciate any help you can give to the ACC Wikiproject, even just looking it over to see if there are any components to the project that would help it out, or, adding things to the to-do-list. Anything really. Within that sphere, I'm currently in the middle of constructing a portal for it, and I hope to get a good chunk of the structure of that done in the next week.
As far as Navboxes, my primary concern is the prior insistence on Jweiss11 to refuse any flexibility, and it is really just him acting singularly. When he first went around replacing all navboxes with his version, he didn't allow any editing of it, to the point of edit warring while refusing discussion of appropriate content for a navbox on its talk page. He just flat out refused to engage in it. Now, overtime, I see that he has loosened his strangle on that. For instance, Florida's navbox that you are involved with maintaining now has additional articles linked under people, like the Ring of Honor and Hall of Fame members. That flexibility is a bare minimum, but at least represents an improvement over his initial behavior.
I don't need to re-list my concerns. I am all for guidelines, and even some standardization through guidelines, and I even think, in general, his standardization was a good thing because it improved many bad or missing navboxes...but that structure should be a starting point for editors to build navagation, not an endpoint. I am absolutely not for the CFB project (which represents only a small active group of participants), nor particularly Jweiss acting alone, having control over 200+ navboxes on individual topics that he simply is not familiar with. Beyond specifics of the CFB Wikiproject, I see that as an unacceptable precedent for Wikipedia in general As I have pointed out, for all other navbox topics and Wikiprojects, from MLB to the NFL, to city and country navboxes, to university navboxes and company navboxes, really anything you can think off, there is no precedence for this anywhere.
Stylistically, there is no reason that a consensus of editors on a topic (which in this case is an individual football program) can not determine for itself to provide links to biographical articles on, say, five Heisman winners' or five retired jersey biographies, but instead be forced to include 100 red-lined or redirected linked years. Prohibiting that sort of consensus is, IMO, a type of mindless rule-mongering that is not only inappropriate, but results in bad navigation boxes. I really have no interest in this type of bureaucratic nonsense taking time away from me building and editing content of articles, but I do feel it is important enough for the entire Wikipedia community, that if he persists to act unilaterally in enforcing his inflexible style across 200+ articles, that it should go to a wider community discussion. This is just not an issue for WP:CFB. This is about one or two editors of a WikiProject asserting ownership over 100s of files and articles in the name of a "Wikiproject" as if that gives some higher authority to ignore any individual article's or template's consensus; or more importantly, preventing the readers of these articles from having the best navigation tool to help them find the most important related articles so that they can attain the best possible understanding of the topic (THE individual teams, NOT college football in general), per WP:NAV.
Since you asked about the Pitt Panthers navbox, there are several levels where it could be improved. Recently, I mimicked your additions with the intent to fill in some articles, like All-Americans which I am modeling on your Florida version (currently in my sandbox). NThomas addressed my concerns with the Pitt Navbox with creating a sandboxed version of the template here, which is actually superior. For one, it clears up the issue with Rivalry games being confused with bowls by separating the topics. It also puts the most relevant topics for understand Pitt football at the top of the Nav box...essentially the history. For Pitt football, the long list of venues, like Rec Park and Expo Park and Three Rivers Stadium, venues used but for a handful of games, some 100 years ago, are thoroughly irrelevant for understanding the topic. Hence the need for flexibility because urban football programs are different than rural ones with less venues over their history. Similarly, including invidual links to seasons in 1892, 1893, 1894, even if full featured articles existed, is completely irrelevant for understanding the topic of Pitt football (and frankly a definitive example of overlinking...IMO, seasons should have a separate navbox). In contrast to the current template model, this old template, with some tweeking, would have been superior for providing a reader with links to the most pertinent information about Pitt football. It was smaller, more concise, and this linked information was infinitely more relevant to what the football program is about both contemporaneously and historically. You could say the same for Florida. It would make a lot more sense to highlight 1996, 2006, and 2008 for UF, and list its 8 SEC championships, etc, rather than have them buried in 100 successive (and to the typical Wikipedia reader, meaningless) dates. It would also make a lot more sense for UF to link directly to the biographies of its 3 Heisman winners, rather than simply provide a repetitive redirect link to the main article subsection that lists those three winners. I don't know why Jweiss believes all football programs have to be reduced to some standard format that eliminates highlighting the most significant achievements of a program for fear of a trophy case, that frankly, is something to be discussed on a program-by-program basis and has zero guideline or policy prohibitions. The real issue, however, is that in many cases, this prevents a navbox linking directly to those relevant articles instead of creating redundant articles or redirects to the main article. As I said previously, you can't shove Akron's kangaroo into the shape of a four leaf clover and expect it to make sense. Programs aren't equally successful, but that doesn't mean you should destroy navigation to their most pertinent articles in the name of some sort of false egalitarianism.
Sorry for the length of reply. CrazyPaco ( talk) 08:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DL, noticed a bunch of your edits to disambiguate links related to "tackles", e.g. on London Fletcher. The links for "Tackles" in the infobox is now pointing to Tackle (American and Canadian football), the article about the position, when it's the football move/statistic ( Tackle (football move)) that we want. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dirtlawyer1. Good luck in the next time. Érico Wouters msg 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dirtlawyer1.
You are invited to join
WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
Hello. You have a new message at Trevj's talk page. Message added 10:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA). -- Trevj ( talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've replied to your message at User talk:Crazypaco#Navboxes for national championship teams, etc.. CrazyPaco ( talk) 21:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've replied to your message at User talk:Crazypaco#Navboxes for national championship teams, etc.. CrazyPaco ( talk) 10:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
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. |
AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Just created the article. Thanks for the suggestion. - PM800 ( talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The basic principle that Mr. Stradivarius is getting at is that an article that is merged cannot be deleted unless the article it is merged into is deleted. This is to maintain the required attribution. On a related note, I just checked University of Florida Career Resource Center and you did everything required, but it would be nice if you'd use {{ Copied}} in the future. It works well for showing the history of the merge (better than digging through the edit history) and it explains why the merged article can't be deleted. Ryan Vesey 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In my second diff, you said that there was a "relatively trivial difference between a redirect and deletion at this point" after you had merged content from the nominated article into the proposed redirect target. However, I believe that if you had been aware of the licensing issues involved in deleting the attribution history of the merged content, then you wouldn't have seen deletion and redirection as equally worthwhile options.
This is an important policy point to understand for admins involved in deletion, but I didn't think it was worth opposing over. That's because once you understand the principles involved, you understand them, and I have every reason to believe that if I pointed them out to you then you would understand them and bear them in mind in your deletion work. I hope this explains things a bit better, but please do ask if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I would have spoken up sooner, but I didn't realize the RFA had opened yet. I have your talk page on my watchlist and assumed something would be posted there. Anyway, better late than never, and good luck with the RFA process. Cbl62 ( talk) 21:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my edit to Auburn–Florida football rivalry:
I think that the overall series record next to each game is important and not clutter. I’d rather discuss this issue with you, rather than reverting your revert, e.g., avoiding an edit war.
I looked through a number of other sports rivalries and found that two of the other Auburn rivalries, Deep South's Oldest Rivalry and the Iron Bowl (Auburn- Alabama, both have overall series records listed next to each game. To go further, I noticed that the Magnolia Bowl, the Egg Bowl, the Third Saturday in October, and the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry pages, just to name a few in the SEC, have series records in their charts. Now I am not saying that those need to be changed to not having series records listed in the charts, but what I am meaning is that a consensus needs to be reached as to how the tables are across Wikipedia. A question I would like to pose is, how does the overall series record constitute clutter?
Basketball123456 ( talk) 00:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you perhaps give more input on the DragoLink08 situation and the consequent rangeblock for the University of South Florida? I've just gotten a message from Hflw27, who says "I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering". I'm going to leave a message on his talk page explaining that I implemented the rangeblock on others' recommendations, that I don't really know how to help, and that I'll ask others to help him; if you can help, please respond at his talk page. Please note that you're not the only one I'm asking; I'm leaving this message for five other users who commented on Drago's situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive783, as well as you. Nyttend ( talk) 02:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
ATTENTION User:Nascarking has just reverted your edit on the Florida–Tennessee football rivalry page. The series records are back!!! Basketball123456 ( talk) 03:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
FYI, if you add a template to a discussion, you need to tag it for deletion. It's very important to follow the correct procedure, or the TfD result might be considered invalid. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Check back in at your convenience. — Bagumba ( talk) 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to stop by whenever you want. Hopefully, things will work out for you. RFA is an interesting experience, no? :) Zagalejo ^^^ 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
No problems, whichever way it goes feel free to pester me all you want! Giant Snowman 08:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | |
My sincere sympathies on the sheer nonsense you have been subjected to with the recent turn of events in your RfA. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 18:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |
Just a heads up—there lately has been extraordinarily tight enforcement of the discretionary sanctions arising from the arbcom case WP:ARBATC. In particular, this seems well-within what some editors have already been sanctioned, or at least hauled off to AE, for. HaugenErik ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar | |
OK; well it doesn't look like this is going to turn out as planned, but I commend you for trying and for still being an overall great editor. I hope this doesn't put you off and that you'll consider a run in the future. Respectfully, Go Phightins ! 02:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
The Surreal Barnstar | ||
I decided this was the most appropriate given the absolutely surreal nature of your RFA and the Salvador Dali-esque nature of some of the opposes. While I'm not questioning the close, I think the community's direction on this one was way off base with regard to WP:AGF and WP:DEAL. I've said it before - we allow existing admins the right to be occasionally human (as we should) but expect admin candidates to be near-perfect demi-gods. Frustrating, but I'm sure you'll continue to be effective without lightning bolt in hand. Stalwart 111 04:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Dirtlawyer1. I'm sorry to inform you, but I've closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Given that a majority of the community did support you, I would suggest you look to the opposition as areas you can grow further in as an editor and consider seeking adminship at a later date. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Np, I'm glad that I supported your RFA but really sad to know that it didn't go so well. I hope it will be better next time when you try to improve more from the comments (especially from oppose sections) you have received during this RFA. Good luck. Torreslfchero ( talk) 11:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
You might want to consider brushing up on your Gator football knowledge with the following subjects if you believe these trophies are insignificant in the context of the rivalry games of the Gators:
Enjoy! NThomas ( talk) 12:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. The purpose of links are to assist readers with something they might be unfamiliar with. You are also incorrect in your idea that two links go to the same term. Just using the wiktionary definition, a term is "word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge". In this instance, we have two terms going to the same article. Nothing in OVERLINK or REPEATLINK advises against that. Ryan Vesey 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
RFA is a dirty business, don't worry about a bad result. Carrite ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me... review me... 04:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I would think Cbl62 would be better at that than I. I rarely venture away from football and basketball for U of M athletes. He has much more experience researching the broader history of Michigan Wolverines.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
C mach 7 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Drago has found himself a new IP (or possible IP range...I guess we'd have to see if more crop up). I was alerted to 108.33.96.224 when he edited {{ 1946 Oklahoma A&M Aggies men's basketball navbox}}, which I have on my watchlist because of DragoLink08. Who is the best in-the-know admin to get to block this IP? Jrcla2 ( talk) 04:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I took care of it, 3 months. Secret account 05:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dirtlawyer,
Thanks for your messages. I appreciate any help you can give to the ACC Wikiproject, even just looking it over to see if there are any components to the project that would help it out, or, adding things to the to-do-list. Anything really. Within that sphere, I'm currently in the middle of constructing a portal for it, and I hope to get a good chunk of the structure of that done in the next week.
As far as Navboxes, my primary concern is the prior insistence on Jweiss11 to refuse any flexibility, and it is really just him acting singularly. When he first went around replacing all navboxes with his version, he didn't allow any editing of it, to the point of edit warring while refusing discussion of appropriate content for a navbox on its talk page. He just flat out refused to engage in it. Now, overtime, I see that he has loosened his strangle on that. For instance, Florida's navbox that you are involved with maintaining now has additional articles linked under people, like the Ring of Honor and Hall of Fame members. That flexibility is a bare minimum, but at least represents an improvement over his initial behavior.
I don't need to re-list my concerns. I am all for guidelines, and even some standardization through guidelines, and I even think, in general, his standardization was a good thing because it improved many bad or missing navboxes...but that structure should be a starting point for editors to build navagation, not an endpoint. I am absolutely not for the CFB project (which represents only a small active group of participants), nor particularly Jweiss acting alone, having control over 200+ navboxes on individual topics that he simply is not familiar with. Beyond specifics of the CFB Wikiproject, I see that as an unacceptable precedent for Wikipedia in general As I have pointed out, for all other navbox topics and Wikiprojects, from MLB to the NFL, to city and country navboxes, to university navboxes and company navboxes, really anything you can think off, there is no precedence for this anywhere.
Stylistically, there is no reason that a consensus of editors on a topic (which in this case is an individual football program) can not determine for itself to provide links to biographical articles on, say, five Heisman winners' or five retired jersey biographies, but instead be forced to include 100 red-lined or redirected linked years. Prohibiting that sort of consensus is, IMO, a type of mindless rule-mongering that is not only inappropriate, but results in bad navigation boxes. I really have no interest in this type of bureaucratic nonsense taking time away from me building and editing content of articles, but I do feel it is important enough for the entire Wikipedia community, that if he persists to act unilaterally in enforcing his inflexible style across 200+ articles, that it should go to a wider community discussion. This is just not an issue for WP:CFB. This is about one or two editors of a WikiProject asserting ownership over 100s of files and articles in the name of a "Wikiproject" as if that gives some higher authority to ignore any individual article's or template's consensus; or more importantly, preventing the readers of these articles from having the best navigation tool to help them find the most important related articles so that they can attain the best possible understanding of the topic (THE individual teams, NOT college football in general), per WP:NAV.
Since you asked about the Pitt Panthers navbox, there are several levels where it could be improved. Recently, I mimicked your additions with the intent to fill in some articles, like All-Americans which I am modeling on your Florida version (currently in my sandbox). NThomas addressed my concerns with the Pitt Navbox with creating a sandboxed version of the template here, which is actually superior. For one, it clears up the issue with Rivalry games being confused with bowls by separating the topics. It also puts the most relevant topics for understand Pitt football at the top of the Nav box...essentially the history. For Pitt football, the long list of venues, like Rec Park and Expo Park and Three Rivers Stadium, venues used but for a handful of games, some 100 years ago, are thoroughly irrelevant for understanding the topic. Hence the need for flexibility because urban football programs are different than rural ones with less venues over their history. Similarly, including invidual links to seasons in 1892, 1893, 1894, even if full featured articles existed, is completely irrelevant for understanding the topic of Pitt football (and frankly a definitive example of overlinking...IMO, seasons should have a separate navbox). In contrast to the current template model, this old template, with some tweeking, would have been superior for providing a reader with links to the most pertinent information about Pitt football. It was smaller, more concise, and this linked information was infinitely more relevant to what the football program is about both contemporaneously and historically. You could say the same for Florida. It would make a lot more sense to highlight 1996, 2006, and 2008 for UF, and list its 8 SEC championships, etc, rather than have them buried in 100 successive (and to the typical Wikipedia reader, meaningless) dates. It would also make a lot more sense for UF to link directly to the biographies of its 3 Heisman winners, rather than simply provide a repetitive redirect link to the main article subsection that lists those three winners. I don't know why Jweiss believes all football programs have to be reduced to some standard format that eliminates highlighting the most significant achievements of a program for fear of a trophy case, that frankly, is something to be discussed on a program-by-program basis and has zero guideline or policy prohibitions. The real issue, however, is that in many cases, this prevents a navbox linking directly to those relevant articles instead of creating redundant articles or redirects to the main article. As I said previously, you can't shove Akron's kangaroo into the shape of a four leaf clover and expect it to make sense. Programs aren't equally successful, but that doesn't mean you should destroy navigation to their most pertinent articles in the name of some sort of false egalitarianism.
Sorry for the length of reply. CrazyPaco ( talk) 08:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
DL, noticed a bunch of your edits to disambiguate links related to "tackles", e.g. on London Fletcher. The links for "Tackles" in the infobox is now pointing to Tackle (American and Canadian football), the article about the position, when it's the football move/statistic ( Tackle (football move)) that we want. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dirtlawyer1. Good luck in the next time. Érico Wouters msg 20:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dirtlawyer1.
You are invited to join
WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
Hello. You have a new message at Trevj's talk page. Message added 10:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA). -- Trevj ( talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've replied to your message at User talk:Crazypaco#Navboxes for national championship teams, etc.. CrazyPaco ( talk) 21:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I've replied to your message at User talk:Crazypaco#Navboxes for national championship teams, etc.. CrazyPaco ( talk) 10:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)