User talk:2012Olympian/Archives/2008/November

Re: Season links
Talk to User:Chrisjnelson, who does most of the infobox work.  Pats 1  T / C  01:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Links
Why did you remove all of these links on articles?--Yankees10 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you went overboard though, I can see removing links that were near others that were already linked, but some of them were way far apart, also you were removing the links to the birthdate in the infobox, which I dont think should be done, I do agree though with you removing the double All-Pro links.--Yankees10 22:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * His problem is he's using AWB, and that doesn't take into consideration that double links can (and often should) be present in an article due to length and space in between them. ► Chris Nelson Holla! 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I already discussed this over on Yankee's10's page, agreed that I had made some mistakes, apologized, and went back through the articles and undid some of the removals. But since you also for some reason seem to need an explanation, let me repeat what I said there: Sorry, new toy. I'll go back through those articles and put back the infobox links to birthplaces and birthdates. But the way the MoS reads, if a term had already been linked in an article, that's all it gets. For example, Barry Sanders has Detroit Lions linked 3-4 times, so I'll bring it down to the first one. I removed the extra links due to this from Maual of Style for one of two reasons.

1. Some were general links to months, days, or years: "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as 1995, 1980s, and 20th century." I also took advice from this directive, "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" to remove general links to dates such as 15 August etc.

2. "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article. So I removed multiple instances of links. Number 2 doesn't make any exception for length between the excessive links. And Yankees10 seemed to be okay with my explanation and apology. I hope you are satisfied now too.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been looking for the discussion where the consensus has been established, but it was obviously a long time ago. So far, I've just found a discussion from summer 2007 mentioning the consensus. Trust me, this infobox was my idea and I've followed it from Day 1. There is a consensus, and you need to stop making edits against it until it is found.► Chris Nelson Holla! 07:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well as I've said, the two infoboxes were conceived by two different people. No, I've not found the discussion, but I do know that everyone who was around at the time knows what the consensus was (to not link them), which is why we all edit it that way (including an admin). As I am sure that there was a consensus against your style of edit at some point, will you avoid making any more of your edits before we have a poll on the NFL talk page? That way, if the same consensus is reached there is nothing we have to undo. If the consensus is in your favor, I'll drop it and we'll change the infobox standard.► Chris Nelson Holla! 14:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think you and I could discuss each change you'd like to make to the infobox and try to reach a compromise?► Chris Nelson Holla! 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your post on my talk page. I've had a busy week, I'll reply within the next day though.► Chris Nelson Holla! 11:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally replied on my talk, sorry for the wait.► Chris Nelson Holla! 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: NFL Year template
Uhh...none of the player infoboxes need any year links. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 06:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my false comment. I don't have time for doing these minor edits because of school and such. Just leave a message on WT:NFL and I'm sure someone will do it. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 06:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

See Jguk
Your recent edits, changing date format in international articles from international format to US format is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling on Jguk, which is featured as a prominent warning on WP:DATE. See here for ANI discussion. --Pete (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Noted player
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Noted player, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Noted player

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mayalld (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding unlinking of dates
As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision, which I quote:

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Olympian. Your contributions on the date-delinking issue are well-judged and most welcome in the current efforts to improve a major aspect of WP's formatting. My advice is to disregard the threatening post above. It does not represent more than a fringe view, and one that is unsupported by logic or cogent argument. Tony   (talk)  12:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Noted player
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert
I've started a thread on TE's date reverting at WP:AN. Please comment if you can.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clean up more of the pages starting from here? I have to step out for a bit, but it's been started... Thanks seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  15:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Olympians
Do all Olympians get a page? What's the guidelines? I figure they have to meet the same notability guidelines everyone else has to meet, but it seems there's an assumption that Olympic participation is the "highest level" as defined in the guideline for athletes. Your thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with that is it seems to violate the broader guidelines for notability. There are an awful lot of Olympians and not all of them are competing at the highest level. Many of them (the vast majority of them) are non-factors. It seems to me it's easier to demonstrate some notability as an Olympian than to compete at the highest level (if you finish 16 you're not really competing strongly) so noteworthy Olympians should have no problem being sourced to a couple good references. No? Heck, half the "sports" in the Olympics are pretty marginal. I'm not trying to argue with you, i'm just enjoying the discussion and trying to work the policy and the logic of it out. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Date linking/formatting RFC
We apparently had the same idea at nearly the same time. =) I opened the RFC at Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC. Let's leave it at the subpage so it'll be easier to point to in the archives if need be. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As Masem requested the page be left as a subpage (and I agree with him) that's what I did. Note that nothing precludes it from being transcluded into the talk page if you think it's important. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note my edit to WT:MOSNUM, the discussion now exists in both places and edits to one are reflected in the other (and vice versa). This is basically abusing the template syntax, but it's normal and okay (WP:AFD uses/used a similar system of using subpages but transcluding on to the main page). As to your notifications at the village pump, I would prefer people not be directed to two similar RFCs, but as it now exists on both pages it should be a simple matter to update your links. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, while I know we disagree about date linking and formatting, I wanted to thank you for reacting calmly to the debate and helping to get the other RFC up and running. I believe the result of that RFC will be something everyone involved can accept. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused at your recommendation at Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Date_Linking_RFC. Under the headers "Years should be linked in certain cases" and "Month/day should be linked in certain cases", you put a bolded Support, but the following comment seems to indicate that you are in fact opposed.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)