User talk:DGG/Archive 53 Jun. 2011

ARCHIVES

Reminders

Topical Archives:

BLP (Biographies of Living People)

Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability, Sourcing,

In Popular Culture, Fiction,  Bilateral relations.

Academic things & people, Journals,  Books & other publications,

General Archives:

2006: Sept-Dec 2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

2008: Jan,  Feb,  Mar,  Apr,  May, Jun,   Jul,   Aug, Sep, Oct,   Nov,   Dec

2009:  Jan,   Feb,   Mar,  Apr,   May,   Jun,   Jul,   Aug,   Sep,  Oct, Nov, Dec

2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May , Jun ,   Jul,   Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May , Jun ,   Jul,   Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

Using alternate name
I shall be editing today using an alternate account, (Librarian B, with sig " DGG (alternate account)" due to some interface problems DGG (alternate account) (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * seems fixed now. My thanks to User:Department of Redundancy Department for cleaning up the problematic javascript.   DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only file of the four that could be causing problems, as far as I can tell, is vector.js, which was changed today. I don't see how that could cause the problem you described, but I'm no expert. The other three files can probably be moved back as-is. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help to revert a page
I need help to revert a page that I've messed up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_401

I just tried to make what seemed like a fairly simple edit but seem to have messed up the page fairly badly so I'm trying to revert it to what it was before I touched it. The only edits that have touched that page since March where the ones I attempted today. Once the page is restored to the last version before I touched it, I will try my edits again. I should mention that I've tried following the instructions for doing a manual revert of the page but it didn't seem to revert at all.

Just so that you can understand what I was trying to do, I live near Highway 401 and the article talks about widening a section of the highway between Woodstock and Kitchener in the "Future" section of the page. That work was, in fact, completed late in 2010 as I noticed when I drove through there at Christmas 2010. I wanted to delete the first two sentences of the last paragraph of "Future" and relocate those two sentences to "Since 2008" and change the verb to use the past tense. Unfortunately, I messed up the edits badly, probably by failing to copy one of the end tags involved.

Can you please revert this page to the way it looked before I touched it and then point me to an article that explains the correct way to make those edits?

Thank you!

Rhino (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * done.   DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackwell Northern Gateway Railroad
I noticed you declined the speedy deletion, citing it can be redirected or merged. What were you proposing it be redirected or merged with? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * presumably a list of defunct railroads in its area. Personally, I think we should have article on every one of them, but it is usual to merge the least important.   DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be defunct. The article says it's a private charter railroad.  Would that still be something that we would include in a list of railroads in Oklahoma? Inks.LWC (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're correct it seems to be the current name. I cannot tell from the material whether or not it might be notable. I think the same as you, that it is probably not, unless something substantial can be found for it or its predecessor--it would need a proper hunt for references, per WP:BEFORE, not a superficial quick judgment.   Unless one is quite certain it should be deleted, speedy is inappropriate.    DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article made no claim of importance, and that was the reason I requested speedy deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Three for a pig
Can you add a merge template for a proposed merger from Three for a pig and Car game? Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * anyone can; for instructions, see WP:MERGE.   DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5
As you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5. T. Canens (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

visible penis line article

 * I understand your reasoning for declining the speedy on visible penis line. I see that someone else suggested a merger, which I added my support to.  I also have, as you suggested might be done, nominated it for AFD.  I also agree with your suggestion for a fully protected redirect for a few weeks, if you would like to place it as a neutral party.

Since you are looking at this, can you take a look at the photo that was first the focus of the article? It states that a certain BLP is the "author" of the "visible penis line" photo, without the requisite RS support for such a statement (and also has been tagged as a copyvio). See. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't even have to look at the illustration to figure it out. The date the article started is a give-away.    DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for input
As someone whose views I respect and who I know to be independent minded, I would be most grateful for your input in a discussion at Talk:Linklaters, which concerns the removal of a long-standing list of that law firm's offices from that article. The discussion could set a precedent for the inclusion of lists of offices in other law firms' articles, or at least embolden certain editors to go on a removal campaign, and I believe it to therefore be of wider impact than is first apparent. Many thanks in advance. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say thanks for providing your input following the above request. Although I do disagree with the position that you have stated - and am genuinely surprised by the emerging consensus view there, it is food for thought for me - I respect it and appreciate you taking the time to contribute. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete talkpage
Hello. Just to let you know - you have deleted Precursor (Language) (expired prod), but forgot the talkpage talk:Precursor (Language)... Christian75 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Stea
This to me would appear to meet requirements in the given profession as a choreographer. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Alternative gender systems
An article that you have been involved in editing, Alternative gender systems, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lagrange613 (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Tagle
Hi I reduced the article about Bishop Antonio Tagle to a stub and added a citation. I hope this helps. I agree with that Roman Catholic bishops are consider notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * for anyone watching, it's not just RC, but any religion where the bishops have territorial jurisdiction. i that has a territorial jurisdiction. The argument is the involvement in the life of the community--it might not hold for some religions tho--I'm not certain I would argue it for for Protestant Episcopal or Methodist bishops in the US, but I would  for CofE b8ships in the UK.     DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about Methodist bishops but Episcopal Bishops in the United States are the same as the Church of England bishops of the UK. I remember starting 1-2 articles involving bishops of the Protestant Episccopal Church of the United States of America who died. Thanks-RFD (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course all Anglican bishops are the same in religious significance; I'm not sure they're as important in social role, or for that matter, in press coverage. There is also a problem with bishops in some Eastern churches where they are bishops of a single congregation,(as they were in primitive christianity). The only ones which have so far been of practical significance here are the Eastern churches, especially in regions where there is also an overall  problem with press coverage..    DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

How can I delete this user page?
I believe you did something to remove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saenger/Michael_Terman from cyberspace a few months ago, at my request. (Thanks!) However, the page has reappeared. Can you please help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saenger (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * done.   DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG! I appreciate it. Saenger (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on Ahirwada
"An article is only deleted via speedy deletion if the entire contents is copyvio &hellip;"
 * K, sorry for the false alarm. That's what I had thought at first, but then I thought it would need to be deleted from the page history. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Written

 * Thanks for the strong and well written argument on Kovesdy discussion. --S.Buntout123 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Prop. deletion
Which prod? It was probably an oversight; I've been tagging a lot in the past few days. Give me a link and I'll fix it. Neutralitytalk 05:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

John Howard (British politician)
Hi, many thanks for helping out with assessing/deleting expired Prods. Just a small point, it is helpful when you delete a Prod if you would be good enough to check for what will become dead-end redirects. I found, and deleted, John Howard (British Politician), for example. Thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit I sometimes find myself deleting so much I don't check up, but do we have a bot for that?   DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * and, btw, Prod seems to have increasing use, just as it ought, and there are very few of us checking them. (I think there may be one admin who interprets checking as always deleting, but that's another problem).    DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is bot that would be very useful. I agree with what you say about the problem with mass deletions. Mind you, when the 6 and 9 June Prods unwind we could have a backlog. TerriersFan (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI WP:Autos/EV/PHEV/HEVs
Hi DGG, I really appreciate your comments at the ANI I opened, but since nobody else commented now it went into the archive here. I have been really been bullied at WP:AUTOS, and this was my third attempt to call attention to this problem. I would like your advice on how to revive or proceed with this complaint. OSX muddled the discussion with another ANI here, and not even bother to reply (now I understand why), so thanks to the bot auto archiving, the discussion went away and one more time he got away with this impulsive blanking and mergers. What can I do? Where or to whom can I take my case. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I just put it back in the main incident page?--Mariordo (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The way it was being discussed, it seemed like an excessive degree of quarreling between editors over a reasonable policy question which could go either way, depending on the overall view of the community. When this happens, the tendency at ANI is to hold everyone involved equally responsible for the quarrel, without much respect to who may be right on the underlying issue. Thus, I see no point in discussing it there--and, in fact, I've almost never recommended that someone go to AN/I. Possibly, the discussion has gotten sufficient attention that people will keep an eye out for these discussions. But Requested Merges is an obscure place--I try to watch a great many things, and it's on my list, but I rarely get to it. If this remains contentious, the way to get attention on the issue is to open an RfC for the policy. If you do that, be prepared to make a specific proposal or, better, a choice between specific proposals.  (The difficulty is, that there is so much material available we could probably find RSs for every variation of a automobile model, The community view on similar instances with other products --computers, cameras, software versions--has consistently been that such a degree of splitting is excessive, more suited for a wikia. (we had a remarkable number of debates over iPad2) But we're not going to lump all models of a marque together, any more than all Apple computers, so the questions is where to draw the line--if you can think of a good intermediate level criterion, it might well be accepted, because everyone involved realizes it's a matter of judgment.  And, after all, having good material on products of importance is more important than whether or not they go in separate articles.    DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your advice. I went to ANI because an admin that belongs to WP:AUTOS and knows the background discussions recommended it, but he doesn't want to get involved in the discussion. I won't re-post it then and try to deal with it the best that I can, going to RfC takes a lot of time, I rather spend it producing new content. I really appreciate your detailed reply.--Mariordo (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Amalthea 13:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

ok

Relevant Quotes
Added this to the user's page. Hope OK:
 * "People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something"  DGG ( talk )
 * [Editorial by burntout123: "Think twice before your delete yet another WP article. Think of DGG's above statement"]

--S.Burntout123 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Luis Antonio G. Tagle
On 9th June you removed a speedy tag from Luis Antonio G. Tagle with the edit summary of "RC bishops are normally considered notable here." I have taken advice from a number of editors and reviewed the Wikipedia policy regarding notability which nowhere states that Bishops are inherently notable. Would you please consider restoring the speedy tag and, for future reference, provide me with some evidence to support the assertion that Bishops are inherently notable. Thanks.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, with respect to speedy deletion: But certainly in any case it is enough of a claim of importance to justify declining a speedy--saying anybody were a significant official in any such body is enough of an assertion to prevent a speedy deletion, whether or not they are actually notable; the criterion is deliberately very weak; see the policy WP:CSD. Second, with respect to the question of the notability of bishops: Please re-read my wording.   I said it was our usual practice, because, in 4 years here, I do not recall any article about a RC bishop  being deleted. And you need not rely only on my memory, for this specific case is listed in Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. That is an essay, not policy, but it accurately describes what usually happens.


 * However, you are right to call attention to the article, for it  did however need third party references.   The proper course in such cases according to WP:Deletion policy is to look for them, and consider nominating for AfD only if you cannot find them--Deletion is always the last resort. (The reason we normally consider bishops notable even without them is that it is almost always possible to find good references to meet WP:GNG, which is the basic part of the notability guideline.)   I can in fact find quite a number just in Google News Archive, and I have added a few to start off with; so did another editor.  Though AfD is unpredictable, I can advise you that in my opinion it is very highly unlikely that with such references the community would decide to delete the article.  .     DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

speedy decline Cedral (disambiguation)
Hi, you declined my request for speedy deletion of the disambiguation page Cedral (disambiguation). IMO it meets the requirements for speedy deletion: it is an unnecessary disambiguation page because the only blue link on it is the article Cedral. Of course it would be better if someone wrote articles about the other two places (if they exist), but noone has done that in the 5 years this disamb page has been around. Markussep Talk 08:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind, problem solved. The disambiguation page has become useful. Markussep Talk 10:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article on MA John
There appeared an entry on M.A.John (related to Good Shepherd Rubber Co etc) quite recently in June. It was the right decision to delete it. Because this seemed to be a SPAM. On the other hand an entry on the real M.A.John do exist already on Wiki in another Language (Malayalam - the local language of Kerala in South India.) http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.A._John  This is the real one on the political figure in Kerala, India who died recently (Feb 2011). I would like to see the English Translation of this entry. If necessary, I am willing to contribute this at a later date. - Geenath (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, I saw that, as it was added as an interwiki link, even though not the same person.   But I do not know Malayalam, & I cannot get even a rough idea of it, because Google Translate does not work from that language. . However, a usable draft article on him has been written at Articles for creation/M.A. John by another editor. It was not transferred to main space, because the reviewer   considered that it was too much like an essay. I agree with that evaluation--it gives partisan opinions about his work, rather than just the plain facts. fortunately, it does have some good references, including 3 in English--one from The Hindu, which we always accept as a reliable source. I have moved it to your user space at User:Geenath/M. A. John, and done a considerable cleanup.  I think you should be easily able to do what is necessary from there. If you need help, let me know.     DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gundam
That's not the only one. Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED human enhancements, Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED factions, Articles for deletion/Minerva class battleship (2nd nomination), and Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger. I'm rather surprised he didn't try to nominate List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters and then targeted the individual character articles. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Texas Rangers season
You gave a warning on the page that it could contain copyrighted material. Which sections, or the whole thing, do you believe might have been in violation?

I have tried to make sure everything I've written has been sourced but not a copy paste job. Thank you, --Red3biggs (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The tone of the entire aricle seemed the way magazines write articles, not the usual rather dull prose of encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia and elsewhere; I am thinking of such phrases as "Although the rift between Greenberg and Ryan were never publicly discussed by the Rangers, reports indicated two major events that might have directly led to the removal of Greenberg, " At Wikipedia, this needs specific sourcing--one reference is listed for the paragraph, but not reports in the plural. Magazines typically do not care about such things, but we do. But I may well have been wrong, in which case, I apologize, for in that case you did a pretty good job of writing. (and feel free to remove the tag).    DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I know I try to make it a more 'entertaining' form of narrative instead of just being factual and bullet point on each topic that occurs during the season, and I try not to over do the ref's on each point. That's just my style and i'd be happy to try to include multiple ref's that each cover the same point. Thank you for the reply and interest in the article. Red3biggs ([[Use

Page deleted, please help
Hello DGG, I was wondering what steps I could take to restore the National Intrepid Center of Excellence page that was marked for deletion. I now realize I chose a bad username (which I will update) but were the references to other wikipedia pages and a couple external links insufficient? Any advice or assistance you can provide are much appreciated! Thank you very much for your help! 12.10.147.122 (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)NICoE
 * it was deleted a promotional. The first step in improving it would be to remove all the adjectives of praise, which comprise a very high percentage of the total words. The second is making sure it wasn't copied from a webpage, for it certainly sounds like it. The third is removing all information intended primarily for patients or prospective patients, such as lists of routine therapies and   standard devices. But none of it will be worth doing unless you can show notability through references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. That's the basic standard for articles in Wikipedia, and the article will not stay in Wikipedia without them.    DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I just re-created the page, per your guidance and suggestions. Please let me know if you see any areas where I can make it stronger. I do really appreciate your help and again apologize for my errors in the last page created.

Speedy deletion of Community Development Councils of Singapore
Hello. I noticed that you have tagged speedy deletion on the following articles: Well, I am not Singaporean, and only created or edited these articles while researching for the article ISO 3166-2:SG. Anyway, the basic idea is that, Singapore is divided into five districts, namely: For each of these districts, there is a Community Development Council, which takes care of the local administrative functions.
 * Central Singapore Community Development Council
 * North East Community Development Council
 * North West Community Development Council
 * South East Community Development Council
 * South West Community Development Council
 * Central Singapore District
 * North East District
 * North West District
 * South East District
 * South West District

For now, I have reverted your speedy deletion nominations, because to me it is clear that that these local administrative units are by themselves notable. I understand why the article Central Singapore Community Development Council was deleted, although that topic is also certainly notable.

Right now, the current scheme is that we have articles on the CDCs, while the districts are redirects (e.g., we have the article South West Community Development Council, while South West District (Singapore) is a redirect). If we prefer, we can also have the reverse, i.e., have articles on the districts, and then the CDCs become redirects. I think we do not need two sets of stand-only articles on both the CDCs and the districts, since there will be too much overlap.

If I have the time, I will edit some of the articles in the next few days, including possibly recreating the article on Central Singapore District/CDC. If you have any suggestions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk p.   DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Miguel González
This is at AFD. I'm leaning toward delete because he has never been elected to office. But I'd like you to assess the situation and comment whether you think it meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FilipAndTal.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:FilipAndTal.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 20:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

WT:V
Hi David, question for you in this section in case you missed it. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SV convinced me--I've left a fairly long comment explaining that we need to say in the text who is the source of a quote.    DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Question for you again at the "Continuing discussion" section. It's not clear whether you're supporting in-text for quotations and close paraphrasing.


 * Also, this is a key part of verifiability, so it wouldn't be appropriate to leave it entirely to other guidelines. If you quote someone, but only add a footnote, the reader can't know whether you're quoting the writer, or quoting someone the writer has quoted. That's a particular problem if the material isn't online. So it really is a key part of WP:V, and editors have complained in the past that V doesn't make it clear enough. There was an attempt to clarify it in March that was later reverted by Philip Baird Shearer and a couple of others, so here we are having to discuss it yet again. It's a little depressing, because no writer randomly adds quotation marks to their writing, but that's what the policy is, in effect, advising. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re. Texas Rangers article
I read both pages you recommended, the one about sports articles doesn't say what you think, so asking for deletion was not wrong. There was no clause specifically about season-by-season articles, it is still a waste of space and should just be in an expanding box on the main page for that team, which on a world scale nobody cares about. The question of whether paid publicists for the team posted that stuff remains.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also pleased to note that someone else marked it as a copy-vio, more fuel for the paid publicist flame, mayhaps you could improve your judgment in future.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * DGG added the copyright vio warning and we have discussed above. Also, as far as paid publicist, as the majority writer on the article, I think I can say it is written in a neutral manner as far as covering the team's season for things both positive and negative that can be correctly referenced. If you take some time to review the other contributions I've made in regards to the Texas Rangers articles, you see the many photographs I've taken and added. I'm an avid fan of the team, I am able to attend some games and take pictures, and I have an interest in recording relevant information about the team.


 * Have you also gone to each other team article and attempted to do the same things? Because I know there are season articles for the Yankees, Red Sox, an at least 3 more teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red3biggs (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I appreciate why baseball fans like baseball and watch it very occasionally. The definitions in the essay (notability sports) are very centred on US sports and only on US sports, and from your words it seems only a few baseball teams try to put up season-by-season articles. I object for a few reasons, the main one is that a 'this season' article is not within the scope of an encyclopedia (it is news), secondary is the way the phrasing is in terms of US sports only. Why not place it in the main article for the team, in an expanding box?Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The clause is at the very top of the section: as follows, in full:( my emphasis)

Notability (Sports)

6.2 Individual seasons

Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.

For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US collegiate American football team and a US collegiate fencing team enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage):
 * A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable.


 * A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable


 * A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable.


 * For programs considered elite in a sport (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, in men's basketball; Tennessee and UConn in women's basketball; Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC in football, etc.) many or all seasons might be notable regardless of the outcome (the amount written by reliable sources on a weekly basis for some of these programs is enough that almost anything or anyone having any relation to them is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline).


 * In cases where the individual season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article.

As for illustrations, we are always glad to receive for Commons professional quality pictures with a free license, like File:Michael Young on April 25, 2009.jpg Once there, they can be used to illustrate any relevant article in any of the language Wikipedias. We very much want a picture of every individual person about whom we have an article, and anyone who ever actually participate in a game of a top level professional team like the Texas Rangers is qualified for an article. Even one inning of one game, but they have to actually play in a regular season game, not merely be on the roster.

If you don't like the policy, try the Dicussion page, I didn't make the policy,but it has widespread support. Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)  DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed reply, didn't find it last time I logged on since there was no notification on my talk page. The current season of any popular sports team is the most trivial kind of news, not something to be covered as if it requires an article in an encyclopedia. The policy also looks like it was specifically phrased to get fan (or publicist) articles on trivial current affairs or news (US professional team sports seasons), and only on teams in the United States (everything is phrased in US terms), into Wikipedia. Think about how many sports have large numbers of participants or huge numbers of fans, extend it and you will have many thousands (or maybe tens of thousands) of articles that are trivial news and not encyclopedia coverage by definition. The policy is written in a way that negates almost all sports worldwide that have mass participation and many people watching games in real life (for example, hockey, not the ice version, but the policy also negates much of the ice version from central to northern and eastern europe, netball, sepak takraw, handball, softball, most cricket, and many, many more). Not prepared to spend the time to fight the policy, better things to do and know how much time here even trying would take, but as a supporter of the policy as it is and an admin you might think about it a little more, since it is part of what you do and you seem pretty reasonable. Disagree on your interpretation, "not a stats directory" is pretty clear, the prose in the Rangers 2011 article is publicity fluff, the only worthwhile things in it are the photos and stats. Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not say I necessarily supported all aspects of the policy. I've mentioned from time to time that I am not really happy with Notability (sports); I think it somewhat over-inclusive in some respects. But sometimes I think it goes in the opposite direction to what you indicate, and over-emphasises minor sports by making notable  all professional athletes in them. There has been considerable change in the policy over my 4 years here, and not all the changes proposed by the Wikiproject have met general acceptance. But I'm not all that much involved with its coverage at Wikipedia--certainly not involved enough to take any active role in  changing rules.  All I do is tell people what they are--which is what I am obliged to do--even with guidelines I very strongly disagree with. Nor, of course, do I ever use admin action in deliberate defiance of the mainline interpretation.  Anyway, choosing not to delete an article is not actualy an administrative function, since anyoen can stop a Speedy except the author of the article  If you think my  interpretation is wrong and the article should be deleted, try AfD. However, the number ofthings I can actually argue about it limited & if anything, I'm trying too much.    DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for another decent reply, but the "sometimes in an opposite direction" doesn't seem to be as true or relevant as my point on "US professional team sports seasons", the policy is specifically phrased for US baseball, basketball, and football (American, which nobody outside a few nuts cares about beyond the US and Canada, with its very similar game). Fans and (surely) pro publicists gamed the system to make the policy as it stands, it runs counter to other more basic policies by encompassing coverage that is just news or at best current affairs.Treatment should be uniform, for example I'd prefer to watch a good close volleyball game to an American football game, unless both are live, then it's a toss-up, but the only thing giving the latter an even chance of attention is the circus frills (rock songs, cheerleaders in the breaks). AfD is probably pointless without challenging the policy, maybe will try later.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For the other contrib, which you must have found by wikistalking, know you are right by policy but everything in the article is unsourced, all in its earlier version was written by the subject or by remote control (would guess they are few). Enjoyed a bit of his writing, but the jab at lawyer claims may well turn out to be right. If you are going to concern yourself with that one, something that you might also take up as an admin is how badly that page defames Jim Hogshire, who appears to be a living person. Wouldn't know Hogshire from a dropped corn kernel in a crowded marketplace, but a good part of Bob Black is just there to defame the man. Then again, why spend time on such a minor subject when a fluff-driving policy on sports articles is in place?Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing more wikistalking on The Abolition of Work article, another case where my word was as good as the original and easily verified by looking at the linked articles on this site, I take back earlier comments about believing in your own good faith.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not wikistalking to look at the   contributions of editors who have very recently joined and are nominating articles for deletions based upon a misunderstanding of the guidelines.  You have been doing so in good faith, but people in the past have sometimes deliberately done so disruptively, & there is no way of telling which, except to look at the work. At any point, whenever I  observes an article that should be deleted, no matter how I happen to see it, I nominate it for deletion. Sometimes my judgement is wrong; sometimes I have not properly researched the subject; sometimes, like everyone else here, I have not fully followed WP:BEFORE. I remain unsure of the notability of this individual essay in a book, but I do not at the moment wish to check further. That's not bad faith, just error or at worst carelessness.  In any case, the article has been improved, & is likely to be kept at AfD.     DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

larity42|Singularity42]] (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Encouraging words
I wish to give you the heads-up that I have quoted on my talk page your encouraging words concerning my editing style. If you do not wish your words to be used by me in such a way, please let me know and I will gladly remove them. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * sure its OK--but remember that the best answer to those who criticize someone for making stubs is to also go back to at least some of them and expand them further--ideally, to expand one or two into high quality articles. Besides showing you know how to write an article, it demonstrates the likelihood that the rest of them are equally expandable.    DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation (2nd nomination)
Since you addressed the first nomination, would you mind putting in your comments on this one as well? By the way, I think "concern trolls" are nominating one too many Judaism-related articles lately. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Laura Massey ("lollip0p")
{{Talkback|Singularity42|Laura Massey ("lollip0p")}|ts=[[User:Singu

Maintenance templates at XfD
Is there a drive to rid WP of maint templates? I don't watch XfDs much, but after the "Expand" debacle, to see two more being taken to XfD in short order is somewhat worrying. Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC).


 * it is certainly starting to look that way--especially for the general ones that are used on a large number of articles. There should rather be a effort instead, to simplify the templates and make them less conspicuous. However, I do not really have the opportunity to work on this now in the necessary extensive manner.   DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jody Whitesides wiki
Hi DGG, I recently decided to come back to wiki to see what ever happened to a draft I had once done. I noticed a discussion about it being fake and un-notable. I saw your comment at the end, I'm assuming after it had been deleted from my user space. Fake no. Un-notable, that would be a debate that could go on for a while and depend on who you talk to. I appreciate your level headedness compared to some of the comments I read. When I wrote the page, I wasn't aware that I couldn't write it. I had trouble with it when creating the page because my IP was in question. Then to be labeled false and fake, was a bit over the top. I get it that wikipedia doesn't want vanity pages, which is why I wrote it as an article - to be factual. All in all, I'm sure at some point my career will get posted to wikipedia by someone other than me. In the meantime, I would appreciate a copy of the page I had created that has been deleted, if for nothing more than my own records of what not to do at wikipedia. [I can't post a link to the deleted page as it's gone and in reading the discussion, I couldn't really tell how to reference it].

Thanks, Jody Jody Whitesides (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is here. Bongo  matic  03:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Belgians
Hi Librarian DGG! You said just as we list notable people associated with the US states, for example, List of people from Iowa. BUT --->>>>>>> There IS List of Belgians !!!!!!! 109.64.106.200 (talk) 07:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)