Talk:Terry Smiljanich

Untitled

 * Previous deletion debate

Date format for references
The date format for references was YYYY-MM-DD when the article was created. This format has been used consistently in the article for references. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Changing the date format in references and then repeating that change when reverted without discussion and consensus is clearly a violation of the ArbCom ruling on two counts. I am opening this topic for discussion. Should a reasonable argument be presented or consensus develop I would support a change, absent that I think the date format should remain as established and I will revert to that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Get your obsessive bolded ugly garbage off my talkpage. Now, if you're going to insist on two date formats in the one article—if it really means that much to you—do NOT revert all of the other improvements I made. Tony   (talk)  12:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from Tony1's talk page moved here:
 * Re: Terry Smiljanich and date formats for references


 * Greetings Tony1 and thank you for your contributions. I noticed you repeated your change to the date style for references on Terry Smiljanich stating, "No good reason proffered for reversion to non-MOS-compliant styles." I would point you to MOS:DATES which states, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." and further down the page a table is provided which lists YYYY-MM-DD as an acceptable date format for references. Your change was reverting my restoration of the original format which I explained with, "Date format set for article already why change". Your edit summaries do not reflect the fact that YYYY-MM-DD is MOS compliant for references (MOS:DATEFORMAT) "Only where brevity is helpful (references, tables, lists, etc.)" (bolding added) (WP:BADDATEFORMAT) column "Acceptable" entry "2007-04-15" or the ArbCom ruling. Honestly this is no huge issue to me. I have opened a discussion at Talk:Terry Smiljanich. My opinion is without a substantial reason the date format for references should not be changed (policy) and that keeping the rather long reference list compact is preferable (policy based per MOS). All that said its not really a big deal to me, but I did want to make sure you were aware of the actual guideline and the ArbCom ruling. I also wanted to suggest once you have been reverted if you wish to repeat an edit, a comment on the user's talk page or the article's talk page is appropriate (see WP:BRD) reverting another editor's work twice in 24 hours without discussion and at variance to PAG could be seen as edit warring.


 * Sorry if this comment seems overkill. I do want to hear your opinions on the date format of references. I do extensive reference work on WP. I myself edit boldly changing date formats for references. I try to do so when there is a lack of consistency, or the reference list is large. I have strong preference for YYYY-MM-DD for all "archived on" dates. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 7:20 am, Today (UTC−5)

Not sure why you would choose to describe the above comment as "obsessive bolded ugly garbage". It seems uncivil of you. I would note that it is a policy and ArbCom based argument presenting rationale with clear quotations and links and requesting your input. I would also note your original and repeated edit is clearly a violation of an ArbCom ruling and (the repeat) is edit warring.

"all of the other improvements" consists of removing/piping eight wikilinks and moving one of them to a "See also" section. I will restore these changes after reverting (note I have opened a discussion about the value of these edits below). Regardless of your opinion that your edits were improvements, PAG makes clear that challenged edits should be supported with discussion on talk, support based on policy, and consensus.

As for "two date formats in one article" I think using full numeric dates in references is preferable for brevity. I do not "insist" on it, I opened the topic for discussion. I remain hopeful you are interested in collaboratively improving the encyclopedia and ask how month and year only dates in the reference list should be handled. They are currently Mmmmm YYYY. Is YYYY-MM preferable for consistency. I don't think it is MOS compliant. In light of the tone of your post I will allow time for discussion before reverting. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Several wikilinks have been removed and or piped. I think there was some value to the previous links. The link to his second high school in Texas reflected it's location as did the link to his graduating high school in Florida. This provided information about his going to school in Texas and later in Florida. The link to partnership, I think, provided information about his position in the law firm, not all readers understand what partnership in a law firm represents, however the linked article may not provide that information clearly. The link to Attorneys in the United States provides information about the subjects profession not sure why this was moved from a link to a "See also" section. I'm not sure where that falls on the spectrum of common knowledge topics not needing linking. Similarly with non profit a legally defined designation. A link to the academic field of his degree also seems to provide useful information, again not sure where this falls on the common knowledge spectrum. I do not intend to restore these links until there has been some discussion. I look forward to input from editors with experience/knowledge/opinions on the subject and hope this thread can provide me with some guidance/understanding of linking on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You've noticed that I removed the deceptive link for "American lawyer" (bunched—MOSLINKS discourages this for good reason), and inserted a clear, unpiped link to that list under "See also"; then at least one or two people might actually click on it, knowing what it will lead to (rather than their likely assumption that it will lead to the generalised articles "Lawyer" or "United States"). I agree about including the locations of the second and third schools, and will insert those now (but can it not be in the pipe, to give more visual isolation to those links?). Common professions are not usually linked: is there a special justification for this? Readers are assumed to be familiar with English vocabulary, and "doctor", "architect", "attorney", etc are hardly technical. I can't imagine a reader who doesn't know what it means in this context. I can't see "non-profit" on the diff, but is it really worthy of legal definition? How is the legal definition relevant to understanding the professional life of the subject? I suppose I can go through it and reinstate the phone-number dates in the reference section, but your motivation to achieve brevity in the ref list at the bottom is hard to understand. Is there a space issue there, such as one finds in a table? Infoboxes, where space is at a premium, don't use ISO phone-number dates. The reference section can go on as long as it likes. I find your repeated rants on my talkpage threatening and unnecessarily aggressive (my most recent edit-summary was probably unnecessary, too). Tony   (talk)  13:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a considered response. I have no objection to your edits to the wl and appreciate your explanation. My engagement on talk here was to enhance my understanding of best practices and you have contributed to it. I agree with the improvement in readability by keeping the links short and with the other points you made (especially the misleading link to a list). Regarding reference lists, I use them extensively for access to the high quality sources and find brevity and consistency useful. I'm not sure why you would characterize two comments on your talk page as repeated. I think the comment moved above stands on it's own, not aggressive but clear policy based rationale. The second comment consisted of a single sentence pointing you to two policies which you seemed not to be following. Thank you for your contributions and specifically for your improvements to this article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just not a good idea to template the regulars unless there's a whole lot more justification for it. You might consider reserving it for a later stage if discussion has well and truly broken down. I'd already seen, from your contribs list, what a valuable editor you are. Tony   (talk)  14:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies if my message was heavy handed. In recognition of your editing experience and contributions, I did not "template" you. I wrote a specific and clear message (perhaps excessively quoting, overlinking and lacking brevity). I also stated in the message, "Sorry if this comment seems overkill." and sought your input. I think you have made improvements to the article and provided valuable commentary here. I am not overly concerned with the date formats of the references and am willing to simply let the matter go.
 * I do find it necessary to state my objections to edit warring, lack of civility and personal attacks. Having said that I hope we can put this behind us and continue to contribute to the encyclopedia constructively and collaboratively. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)