User:Barryjjoyce/sandbox

DP Rule
2014

Guidelines

 * Size guidelines:
 * Article Size — WP:SIZERULE . . . Article length – rule of thumb (30kB-50kB . . . 50kB (possibly), 60kB (probably), 100kB (almost certainly).


 * Lead / First Para:
 * Length of Lead — WP:LEADLENGTH (Depends on article length, but 2-4 paras for a >30kb article)


 * First Sentence:
 * First Sentence — WP:LEADSENTENCE (tell the generalist reader what the subject is; ideally, the page title [in bold] is the subject of the first sentence)
 * 1st Sent Bolding — MOS:BOLDTITLE (Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead)
 * Foreign languages — MOS:FORLANG (Do not put multiple versions of the name and pronunciation in the first sentence).
 * Biographies — WP:BIRTHPLACE (No need to put birthplace in brackets in lead, unless it is significant).


 * Sections and Paragraphs:
 * MOS:BODY . . .Manual_of_Style/Layout

How do I get others to notice the page I just created?
 * Categories
 * Linking
 * Navbox
 * WikiProjects

Consensus & Cooperation



 * Consensus:
 * Consensus ("consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions")
 * Closing discussions ("judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue")
 * WP:SILENCE ("Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident")


 * What happens if WP:NOCONSENSUS:
 * "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
 * "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept."


 * Removing content from an article (& reasons):
 * WP:RVREASONS . . . Content_removal
 * "I would ask at this stage for you to step back and try to objectively assess whether the presence of this information has ever impeded your ability to enjoy an article or reduced the usefulness of an article overall, and whether this is beginning to become more an argument about rigourously enforcing a general guideline rather than being about providing material improvements to a series of articles."


 * Discussions:
 * Insert the "discuss" tag to let readers know of the ongoing discussion on the talk page.
 * On a talk page, use the "ping" to let that editor know that he is being discussed on the talk page.


 * WP:BRD essay (not a policy):
 * ("In the edit summary of your revert, include a link to WP:BRD to remind an inexperienced editor of the method and your intent")
 * ("When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.")
 * ("Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante).")
 * (""BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring. Avoiding edit warring is a policy that all editors must follow.")


 * Arguments to Avoid: WP:AADD
 * Merely citing a policy or guideline, without explaining specifically how the policy applies to the discussion. WP:VAGUEWAVE
 * ("Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments.") WP:UNENCYC
 * Simply stating that an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.WP:ITSNOTABLE


 * Edit Wars:
 * WP:AN/EW = reporting edit wars & 3RR. Includes searchable archives.

Wiki rules

 * 1) WP:FIVEPILLARS — fundamental principles
 * 2) WP:POLICIES — Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow.
 * 3) WP:GUIDES — Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus.
 * 4) WP:ESSAYS — Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established.
 * 5) WikiProject advice pages — WikiProject advice pages written by these groups [WikiProjects] are formally considered the same as pages written by anyone else, that is, they are essays unless and until they have been formally adopted as community-wide guidelines or policies. WikiProjects are encouraged to write essays explaining how the community's policies and guidelines should be applied to their areas of interest and expertise.
 * 6) WP:PROJPAGE — Many large WikiProjects eventually collect some advice about how to apply Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and essays to their specific subject area.
 * 7) Consistency: Editors who are working on such an advice page are encouraged to carefully study the main policies, guidelines, Manual of Style, and relevant essays. The best advice pages do not conflict with the site-wide pages and avoid unnecessary duplications with site-wide pages.
 * 8) Benefits:
 * 9) Limits:
 * 10) Weight: An advice page written by several participants of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor.
 * 11) WP:CONLEVEL — "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale . . . participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

On the next matchday
Interesting discussion here about not including these statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_54#Talk:2012.E2.80.9313_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage
 * "the fact that the material is so time-sensitive that it will only be present for a few days flies in the fact of the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy and the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy and, frankly, with Wikipedia's essential essence as an encyclopedia."
 * "the material should not go in the article(s). The data is just too transitory: it only is useful for about two weeks."

MLS Expansion
Notes: Bold are probables, Italics are doubtfuls.

RfC
Start a new RfC with the sole purpose of eliminating that section of the guideline.

In your description of the problem, make sure that you include links to any and all discussions on the topic so that the new reviewer will have all of the evidence at their disposal (I won't be closing the next discussion on the topic, as I feel it is inappropriate to close consecutive discussions on the same basic topic). Make sure that when you are listing all of the previous discussions that you include a sub-section with all of the sources and things you can find that oppose the use of these fixture sections and all of the ones that support the use. The purpose of doing this in the description is to make sure that your description is as neutral and fair to both sides right up front.

That said, you are more than welcome to add your "personal" feelings, thoughts and objections to the current wording in the discussion section of the RfC.

Inventory
Men's:
 * 1) United States
 * 2) Canada
 * 3) Russia
 * T1: [Ireland], [Italy]
 * T2: [Spain], [Japan]

Women's:
 * 1) New Zealand (full)
 * 2) England (full)
 * 3) France (full)
 * 4) South Africa (full?)
 * 5) Australia (full)
 * 6) Wales (full)
 * 7) Ireland (full)
 * 8) Scotland (full)
 * 9) Italy (full)

RfC
Should the WikiProject Rugby Union style guide be revised as proposed below to state that there is a lack of consensus on whether recent fixtures should be included in national team articles? A related RfC was closed by an editor who suggested here that this new RFC be started.

Existing version:

Proposed version:

Support (adopt proposed revision)

 * 1) Support —

Oppose (retain existing version)

 * 1) Oppose —

Discussion
Historical background from 2006–07:
 * 1) Shudde raised the possibility of deleting a recent fixtures section from the All Blacks article during this discussion in 2006 regarding moving the article to Featured Article status. The editors were fine with Shudde removing the section as part of the FA process. But the editors did not recommend removing these sections from all national rugby team articles, and some editors advocated for including them. For example, one editor stated that "It's ok to have [these sections]" and another stated "It is a very useful addition to the page."
 * 2) Shudde initiated this discussion in 2007 at the WP:RU talk page. That discussion reflects a proposal from Shudde that the fixtures sections be removed, a second proposal from another editor regarding a different way of presenting the information, and then further discussion about the second proposal with no meaningful discussion of the original proposal regarding removal. Shudde tried repeatedly to return the discussion to his original proposal but received no responses. Following three consecutive unanswered messages (see the bottom of the discussion), Shudde observed that there were "no objections" to his proposal and stated he would amend the Style Guide.
 * 3) Shudde then inserted this fixtures section in the Style Guide. Despite Shudde's prior proposal on the WP:RU talk page receiving zero comments — neither supporting nor opposing — the style guide was written to say that there is "consensus" among WP:RU members on this issue. The style guide links to the 2007 discussion as evidence of this consensus.
 * 4) Various WP:RU editors have not interpreted the 2007 discussion to mean that national team articles are prohibited from including fixtures sections. One editor interpreted that discussion to mean that "It is fine to have [these sections] on other national team articles" while another WP:RU editor has characterized the 2007 discussion as "a 7-year old discussion that few participated in."

Recent talk page discussions from 2014:
 * 1) The WP:RU Style Guide talk page reflects comments on the fixtures guideline from only two WP:RU members — one who supports the guideline, and one who opposes it.
 * 2) See this Canada talk page discussion and the page's edit history from October 2014 where Shudde was edit warring with two other editors over this. In trying to remove the fixtures section, Shudde pointed to the Style Guide as evidence of a WP:RU "consensus" on this issue.  Although Shudde cited the WP:RU "consensus," the other editors gave this little-to-no weight. Shudde lost the debate, and the consensus of the editors on the Canada national team article was to retain the section.
 * 3) Several editors have have added these sections to articles or restored sections that Shudde had tried to delete. See this Canada talk page discussion and the page's edit history from October 2014 where Shudde was edit warring with two other editors over this and he ended up losing the discussion. For example, he tried to remove this section from the Canada national team article, pointing to the Style Guide as evidence of a WP:RU "consensus" on this issue. The consensus of the editors on the Canada national team article was to keep the section.
 * 4) There was a related discussion here on the WP:RU talk page regarding results sections. Two editors expressed support for allowing fixtures sections, and one editor proposed removing them. The discussion did not result in consensus. While the previous discussion was ongoing, an editor involved in that discussion began a new RfC.
 * 5) The proposed RfC began by declaring the existence of a "long-standing convention" on this issue, and cited the 2007 discussion as evidence of this consensus. That RfC found two editors expressing support for results sections and four editors expressing opposition. An uninvolved editor then closed the discussion, deciding there was not enough of a present consensus to overturn the apparent previous 2007 "consensus." When evidence was presented to the closer that there had been no consensus in 2007, the closer then suggested that this new RfC be convened.

Recent relevant editing history from 2014:
 * 1) Several WP:RU national team articles currently have these results sections or similar sections. (This suggests a lack of consensus among WP:RU members that they should be removed).
 * 2) Only one editor — Shudde — has recently tried to remove these sections from articles.
 * 3) Several editors have edited these sections in various national rugby team articles. (These editors are tacitly acknowledging that they see value in these sections).

2023 RWC hosts
Notes:
 * Members data is from the ______.

GS
Notes:
 * 6/14 Eng v. Ita = ESPN's most watched non-US group-stage match ever.
 * 6/17 Mex v. Brz = 11m is the highest viewership for a non-US group-stage match ever.
 * 6/21 Ger v. Gha = Tied for ESPN's most watched non-US match ever. {Tied 2006 Ger/Ita semi}.

KO
Notes:
 * 6/28 Brz v.Chl = The #1 watched ABC/ESPN R-16 match not involving the US ever.
 * 6/29 Mex v. Hol = Univision's most watched broadcast ever.

Club soccer matches on TV
The following table shows the most watched club soccer matches in the United States. The most watched matches are from European clubs — both the UEFA Champions League and the English Premier League.

Sports TV viewership records

 * 1) Football = 111.5m (2014 Superbowl)
 * 2) Baseball = 39.1m (The most viewed baseball game since 2000 is the 2001 World Series game 7).
 * 3) 54.8m = most viewed baseball game of all time (1980 World Series game 6)
 * 4) 25.4m = (The most viewed baseball game since 2005 is the 2011 World Series)
 * 5) Bsk'ball = 35.9m (2010 NBA finals game 7)
 * 6) Soccer = 29.2m  (2014 World Cup final)
 * 7) Hockey = 8.5m (The most viewed hockey game since 2000 is the 2011 Stanley Cup game 7).
 * 8) 12.4m = (Most viewed hockey match of all time is the 1971 Stanley Cup game 7)

Totals
Others:
 * 1) BB missing in: MT – WY – ID – SD.
 * IH: 100% in New England, 0 in the South.
 * FH: 11/17 (65%) in NE.
 * 1) Flag FB: 1 (FL only).
 * 2) Rugby: 0 (begins in MA in 2016).

West (13)
Note: Idaho and Montana sponsor softball, but not baseball.

SE (14)
Note: Florida also offers flag football as an official sport.

College rugby on Wiki
My Faves:
 * D1V — UCLA → Penn State → Army ('14) → CWU ('14)
 * WAS — Maryland → Navy → UVA ←→ Delaware → Towson → Kutztown
 * ST.L — Lindenwood

A: D1 Big5/BK and Top 30
0–1 paras
 * Arizona State (1p)
 * #24 South Carolina (1p)

2–4 paras (work on these)
 * # 8 UCLA (3p)
 * #12 Utah (2p)
 * #11 Penn State (5p!)
 * # 4 St. Mary's (3p)
 * #14 Navy (3p)
 * Maryland
 * Arizona
 * TAMU
 * Tennessee
 * LSU

4 paras + Art
 * # 2 Cal–V (4+A)
 * # 1 BYU (2+A)
 * #12 Army–V (2+A)
 * #18 Clemson (2+A)

B: D1 decent or Top 15
0–1 paras
 * Florida
 * Wisconsin {Nov '12 IP's}
 * Michigan (1p)

2–4 paras
 * #3 Life Univ. (2p)
 * #5 Arkansas State (4p)
 * #6 Cent. Wash.–V (5p!)
 * #13 Kutztown (3p)
 * #20 UCF (4p)
 * Cal Poly (1/0)
 * Texas (4p!)
 * Oklahoma (2p)
 * Ohio State (2p)
 * Bowling Green (2p)

4 paras + Art
 * #8 Lindenwood
 * #14 Davenport
 * #18 Dartmouth
 * #20 Air Force
 * Notre Dame

WP:FOOTY / Talk — Use of color in tables

 * The Wikipedia-wide consensus, otherwise known as MoS, is at MOS:COLOR. A pertinent bit reads
 * The specific colours used are too strong. Personally, I don't find the wikilinks easy to read on several of those background colours.
 * And the bolding is inappropriate: see MOS:BOLD.
 * The tiny text in the RH table position column is smaller than the minimum permitted by MOS:FONTSIZE, as well as being completely unnecessary: the wording "1st of 5" at normal font size is readable, MoS-compliant, and takes up less width than 1st / 5 teams with small applied as used in the RH table. As demonstrated below. In my experience, the footy project doesn't take much notice of certain aspects of the MoS... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The tiny text in the RH table position column is smaller than the minimum permitted by MOS:FONTSIZE, as well as being completely unnecessary: the wording "1st of 5" at normal font size is readable, MoS-compliant, and takes up less width than 1st / 5 teams with small applied as used in the RH table. As demonstrated below. In my experience, the footy project doesn't take much notice of certain aspects of the MoS... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * if background colouring causes accessibility issues, you can always use border colouring instead


 * Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RU — Assessment — Importance scale

 * Fill in blanks
 * Added rugby sevens (IRB &s WS) — players, coaches, natl teams
 * Added club rugby (H-Cup & Super Rugby) — players, coaches
 * Change
 * Tighten up criteria for people, esp. players.

Warnings
Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again.

Please stop vandalizing Wikipedia articles as you did to ___. If you continue to vandalize pages, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you will be blocked from editing.