User:PhilipR

es:Usuario:PhilipR pt:User:PhilipR eo:User:PhilipR

Some Wikipedia critiques
In short, I don't like Wikipedia because it's a free-for-all where the most persistent, noisiest people get their way. It's typically dressed up in claims of NPOV, but NPOV is just another way of saying "majority wins." It claims a moral high ground it's not entitled to. More specifically:

Most tenacious wins
I don't enjoy devoting time to Wikipedia because "consensus" is a euphemism for whoever has the most free time to argue everyone else into submission wins.

Wasting time on edits
If I can't make a substantive edit without being prepared to spend hours defending it, then I just don't find it a good use of my time to continue making substantive edits. I might fix a comma splice or two.

This means that the people who are willing to spend hours defending their edits exercise disproportionate influence over the direction of the encyclopedia. (By disproportionate, I mean not commensurate with the quality of their arguments. In other words, they win debates by attrition.)   Rewarding those who spend the most time editing with our esteem and gratitude is certainly fitting. Rewarding people who have the time to always get the last word in any debate by allowing them to always get their way seems counterproductive. However, I'd rather find another hobby than continue to argue about such picayunes just for the satisfaction of "being right."

Let no bad deed go unrewarded
See discussion at Talk:Vitoria-Gasteiz. After a couple of years, we finally built consensus. The system worked -- slowly. The offender's page move was corrected -- slowly. But for multiple years, his unilateral move achieved the desired outcome.

That's not a consenus-based community, no matter how much self-deception you practice to tell yourself it is.

lolz


Yeah, good call deleting that article.

Sandbox: Stupid stuff
I might play with the colors below to get them like I would like them. :)

Qualification
Twenty-four teams are expected to participate in the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League from the North American, Central American, and Caribbean zones. Nine of the teams will come from North America, twelve from Central America, and three from the Caribbean.

Teams may be disqualified and replaced if they don't have a stadium for the tournament that CONCACAF deems suitable. If a club fails to meet the standards for its home stadium, this club must find a suitable stadium in its own country. If said club fails to provide the adequate facilities, it will run the risk of being replaced.


 * Central America: 12 Central American clubs can qualify to the Champions League. If one or more clubs is precluded, it will be supplanted by a club from another Central American federation. The reallocation would be based on results from the Champions League 2009–10.


 * Caribbean: If any Caribbean club is precluded, it will supplanted by the "CFU Club Championship 2010" 4th place finisher.

For the Central American representatives that qualify via split seasons, in nations that play a playoff to determine a national champion, the winner will gain the nation's top spot, and in nations that don't, total points over both seasons, followed by other tiebreakers, will determine which team gains the nation's top spot.

After having analyzed previous results, the CONCACAF Executive Committee approved a reallocation of berths compared to the previous two seasons, giving Panama one automatic place in the Group Stage while making both of El Salvador's qualifiers go through the Preliminary Round.

1 Berths originally awarded to Belize (Belize Defence Force) and Nicaragua (Real Estelí), but both countries failed CONCACAF stadium requirements, so the spots vacated were awarded to Honduras (Motagua) and Panama (San Francisco) based on the performances of clubs from those countries last season.

Format
There will be a two-legged Preliminary Round for 16 clubs, with the eight winners advancing to the Group Stage. The other eight qualified teams will be seeded directly into the Group Stage. The clubs involved in the Group Stage will be placed into four groups of four with each team playing the others in its group in both home and away matches. The top two teams from each group will advance to the Championship Round, which will consist of two-legged ties. The Final Round, to be held in late April 2011, will also be two-legged. The away goals rule will be used, but will not apply once a tie enters extra time.

Preliminary round
The draw for the Preliminary Round and the Group Stage was held on May 19, 2010, at the CONCACAF headquarters in New York City. The first legs of the Preliminary Round will be played July 27–29, 2010, while the second legs will be played August 3–5, 2010.


 * }

UEFA Champions League
TH Title Holder

Second qualifying round
The first legs were played on 13 and 14 July, and the second legs were played on 20 and 21 July 2010.


 * }

Third qualifying round
The third qualifying round will be split into two separate sections: one for champions and one for non-champions. The losing teams in both sections will enter the play-off round of the 2010–11 UEFA Europa League. The first legs are to be played on 27 and 28 July, and the second legs are to be played on 3 and 4 August 2010.

!colspan="6"|Champions Path

!colspan="6"|Non-Champions Path


 * }

Play-off round
The play-off round will be split into two separate sections: one for champions and one for non-champions. The losing teams in both sections will enter the group stage of the 2010–11 UEFA Europa League. The first legs are to be played on 17 and 18 August, and the second legs are to be played on 24 and 25 August 2010. Following a trial at last year's UEFA Europa League, UEFA have announced that in both this year's and the 2011-12 competition, two extra officials will be used - with one on each goal line.

Champions
The 10 winners from the third qualifying round for champions will play in the play-off round for champions.

Non-champions
10 clubs will play in the play-off round for non-champions: the 5 winners from the third qualifying round for non-champions, and the following 5 clubs which will enter in this round:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Tottenham Hotspur
 * 🇪🇸 Sevilla
 * 🇮🇹 Sampdoria


 * 🇩🇪 Werder Bremen
 * 🇫🇷 Auxerre

Group stage
32 clubs will play in the group stage: the 10 winners from the play-off round (5 champions and 5 non-champions), and the following 22 clubs which will enter in this stage:


 * 🇮🇹 InternazionaleTH
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Chelsea
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Manchester United
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Arsenal
 * 🇪🇸 Barcelona
 * 🇪🇸 Real Madrid
 * 🇪🇸 Valencia
 * 🇮🇹 Roma
 * 🇮🇹 Milan
 * 🇩🇪 Bayern Munich
 * 🇩🇪 Schalke 04
 * 🇫🇷 Marseille
 * 🇫🇷 Lyon
 * 🇷🇺 Rubin Kazan
 * 🇷🇺 Spartak Moscow
 * 🇺🇦 Shakhtar Donetsk
 * Twente
 * 🇷🇴 CFR Cluj
 * Benfica
 * 🇹🇷 Bursaspor
 * Panathinaikos
 * Rangers

temp temp

 * Strong support The fundamental argument is that consistency is one of the five criteria for naming. Consistency with other sports articles indicates using officially-sanctioned nicknames. None of the other four criteria comes down clearly on either side (but see my last point below). Some other points of rebuttal:

1. One of MHawk10's sources is irrelevant. "Recent past" -- the supposed source refers to the 1990s. The nickname 20 or more years ago, and its use in an article about student-athletes from that era, is at best marginally relevant to this discussion. 2. In the absence of a large number of sources to the contrary, MHawk's argument has a certain circularity. Why name the article something different? Because that's allegedly common usage. Can we demonstrate how common it is with ngrams? No, because the team isn't referred to often enough. If there's not enough usage to generate a clear written record of preference, there's not much evidence to buck the actual nickname of the team specified by the institution itself. In theory there might be millions of people still talking about the Peahens but insufficient online sources to document said preference. In practice this is implausible.

3. Skarmory's argument seems dispositive to me. The nickname indicates in a sports team's article is viewed by readers as evidence of fact. Keeping a name contrary to their official nickname in there is lying. It's not incumbent on a reader to read an entire article to understand that the title is presenting "casual" or "unofficial" information when this is very much out of the norm for sports articles.

4. See Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Oakland Athletics for examples of marginal cases where one could apply MHawk10's reasoning to suggest WP gets it wrong. It's Unclear which option[s] are slightly favored in *spoken* English, but then it's unclear here too.

5. I doubt it's common parlance to say, verbatim, "Saint Peter's Peacocks and Peahens," or "Saint Peter's Peahens basketball," in that set phrase. If we're going to apply COMMONNAME somewhat legalistically, we need to

5. If you really do want to push the issue with WP:COMMONNAME, then we should be truly legalistic and borderline pedantic about pushing all Wikipedia standards to the limit, "the Peacocks and Peahens of basketball, swimming and volleyball" isn't useful to argue for the present name.

Saint Peter's women's basketball that I'll offer an exceedingly pedantic rebuttal. For that matter,