User talk:Alphabeticalization

Old CWS-style brackets
I noticed you were the master behind the 6Team2ElimA B and C brackets, and they're awesome. The only thing I was wondering was if you'd feel comfortable making a change for me.

Instead of a round-seed naming convention, I think a game-team setup might make more sense.

For example, on ESPN's 1998 tourney results it pretty strictly lists things by Game #, however, those game #'s do not then go sequentially into the template. (they actually would get entered 1,2,3,5,4,6,7,8,9,10. For an example, see 1998 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament.

So, rather than having the variables be "RD1-seed1" it seems to make sense to change it to "Game1-Team1" and so on, so then games could be entered chronologically, even if that doesn't match the order they appear on the Bracket.

I realize you created these a year and a half ago, but I wanted to ask before I myself went into someone else's work and mucked around. Please let me know if you'd rather I do it, or if you think a conversation on a different talk page (perhaps for the template) would be merited first. Thanks.Alphabeticalization (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, this shows that I haven't worked on this project in far too long! Hopefully with someone new (like you) working on it again, I'll find more motivation to get back into the editing mode.


 * Anyway, to answer your question, I'm not sure what renaming the variables from "RDx-teamy" to "gamex-teamy" really accomplishes. As nice as it would be, it's not quite possible to just enter the games in chronologically as they happen to appear on your CNN-SI site (or wherever we might pull historical info from). This is because the games just weren't always played in the same order, standardized in every regional. For example, in your results link above, scroll down to the Midwest regional in Wichita. Game 1 is the 3 seed against the 4 seed. In the template I created, that game would not fit appropriately in your so-called "game 1" spot in the template - the resulting matchups would be all messed up (this is why these convoluted 6-team brackets are inherently a pain in the ass)! However, if you place them in the bracket in the proper RD1-seed3 and RD1-seed4, everything should (I think) work out properly. Yes, I understand it's a little bit more time-consuming to have to look at each matchup to see where it's supposed to go in the bracket, but at least it looks right in the end.


 * Again, I haven't worked on this in quite awhile, so maybe my logic is in fact incorrect. Feel free to try and explain it to me again if you think so!


 * Also, as a side note, our standard policy when filling in the brackets is to bold the winning team's name, and their score, NOT bolding the seed number (we bold that number when things like national seeds are in play... which may have been a different system back in '98). Also, I believe the standard practice (at least agreed-upon, not necessarily always implemented...) when linking to the team name in the bracket is to link to the most specific existing page possible: if it exists, link to the school's baseball team page, if not, try the school's athletics page, and if that doesn't work, just link to the university page itself. Basically, go for the most-specific blue link possible (red links are ugly). Take a look at some of the more recent tournament pages to see how the finer details look.


 * Your work is looking good so far! Thanks for your efforts on the college baseball project - we hope to see you around for awhile! Oughgh (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, I hope the brackets make a little more sense now. As for the red links, your idea about creating redirect pages is a novel idea - I've never heard it thrown around before, but it sounds like a great idea to maximize the specificity of links AND minimize re-work in the future! Hey if you want to create a bunch of redirect pages - go for it, be bold. And in terms of how we're supposed to carry on this conversation, I'm not entirely sure (since neither of us knows if we're 'watching' each others' talk pages), so this seems to work fine for now. Any more questions (or bracket design requests), feel free to let me know! Oughgh (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Spring Branch
Hi! I forgot about the article for awhile, and I forgot I had nominated it for GA. Anyway I'm improving the article based on the suggestions you made two months ago. After some checks I might renominate it. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Evermore (Taylor Swift album)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)