User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/October

Stacy Clinesmith comments
Thanks for taking a look at Stacy Clinesmith and filling it out more completely. Some observations:
 * I should've picked up the a.k.a. (Stacy Marie Clinesmith) myself. I have done that on some occasions although I think I missed some.
 * My language skills are weak so I am uncomfortable writing descriptions in other than English.
 * I noticed you included UC Santa Barbara Gauchos in "member of sports team". I know this seems obvious but I had been doing something else. I was leaning on the fact that of these players have signed a legal document (letter of intent) in which the parties are themselves and the University not the name of the sports team. However, I am now thinking that's a little too lawyerly, and I should be using the team name if available.
 * In the case of professional teams I had been listing them under "employer", on the argument that that's a legal employment situation. Even as I write this, I vaguely recall a discussion which distinguish between players and coaches. I think the convention is that coaches should have their affiliation with the sports team under employer, while players should have their affiliation under the "member of sports team". Please confirm, as I have some work to do to make some corrections.
 * I haven't been adding "country of citizenship" unless I see clearer evidence. I realize that "American" is listed in the infobox, but I see nothing in the article to support this other than a statistical argument which is not adequate in my opinion. As a better example, see Megan Compain where two countries are listed under "country of citizenship". I am fine with including New Zealand but what's the evidence that she is a US citizen? Pinging, the editor who added the entry for feedback.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  11:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're doing fine, chief. We learn mostly by doing.  Couple of quick points from above --
 * 1. At a minimum use the "also known as" alias field at the top for full names, maiden names, married names, nicknames, etc., if they are different from the primary English language label.  You can use the fields for "given name," "surname," "nickname," and "birth name" IF you are so inclined, but these are beyond the basics.
 * 2. Focus on the English language labels and descriptions at the top of the page, and don't worry about foreign language labels and descriptions.  (Entering French and Spanish is my own little fetish, and a small way for me to practice my mostly unused skills in those languages.)  All of the individual fields down the page (e.g., "occupation," "birth date," etc.) are automatically translated into the language in which Wikidata users are viewing the page.
 * 3. The "member of sports team" field is apparently intended to be used for both notable amateur and professional teams.  I was originally including coaches here too, but another experienced Wikidata editor suggested the "employer" field was better for coaches.  I acquiesced.
 * 4. The convention on English language Wikipedia is us the more specific college team name ("Virginia Cavaliers football"), rather than the broader university/college name (e.g., University of Virginia) for describing the student-athlete's team membership.  In articles about college athletes, I always mention both the university and the team, with specific links to both.  Wikidata offers fields that allow you to maintain that distinction -- "educated at" and "member of sports team," and they can utilize subfields for academic degrees and team positions, respectively.  That's a level of detail I have usually avoided, though.
 * 5. I think it's safe to assume American-born athletes competing for U.S.-based teams are U.S. citizens -- unless you have specific information otherwise.  It does not appear that Wikidata has given this the same amount of thought as several English-language WikiProjects have -- several sports projects in particular -- and Wikidata is using the "country of citizenship" field in the broadest way possible.  If you have serious doubts about this field for any particular subject, just don't use it for that particular subject.  In most sports, when an athlete has competed internationally in the Olympics, world championships, etc., it's usually safe to assume their citizenship corresponds to their sporting nationality.  This is not true, however, in association football/soccer, because FIFA has its own complicated rules for determining representative sporting nationality that may or may not correspond to legal citizenship in particular cases.  If you know someone is a dual citizen, there is nothing wrong with listing both countries.  For instance, Tracy Caulkins is an American-born U.S. citizen who became an Australian dual citizen after marrying her Australian husband, Mark Stockwell, and she has received Australian post-nominals for her work in youth sports.
 * All good questions. Keep up the good work, SP!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A different question
Tamika Williams got married and changed her name to Tamika Raymond. She is no longer married and has changed her name back to Tamika Williams. The English Wikipedia entry reflects her current name. However the Wikidata item uses Tamika Raymond. I am sure the situation has come up a number of times, what is the protocol?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a similar issue with Joi Williams Felton who is now going by Joi Williams, see official bio. I haven't yet changed the article title but how would I handle the wikidata entry?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, there is no standard protocol for presenting women subjects' maiden names or married names anywhere within Wikipedia's guidelines. IMO, it is a glaring omission from the MOS.  If a female subject has had one or more married names, they should be included in the Wikidata profile for the subject as "also known as" aliases -- even if they are subsequently divorced.  The idea being that we want to leave a popcorn trail for other editors who may be researching the subject in the future.  Whether we include the married names in the English-language Wikipedia article -- in the lead, infobox or otherwise -- is a matter of editorial judgment, especially if the marriage was short-lived, the married name was not publicly/professionally used by the subject, or the subject has been married/divorced/widowed multiple times.  In many cases where the subject became notable before her first marriage, the article title should remain the subject's maiden name per WP:COMMONNAME.  I'm traveling today, but I will elaborate further and provide multiple examples of how I have treated married names in particular circumstances when I get home later today.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are several examples of how I have treated married names of female athletes and coaches in the lead:
 * 1) Lillian Debra Watson (born July 11, 1950), commonly known by her nickname Pokey Watson, and later by her married name Lillian Richardson, is an American former competition swimmer  . . . . Lillian Watson: well-known nickname and later married name;
 * 2) Mary Wayte Bradburne (born March 25, 1965), née Mary Alice Wayte, is an American former competition swimmer . . . .  Mary Wayte: known professionally after sports career primarily by her married name;
 * 3) Dara Grace Torres (born April 15, 1967) is an American former competition swimmer . . . . Dara Torres: omitted obscure married names that she never used professionally, but mentioned ex-husbands by name in main body text;
 * 4) Ernestine Jean Russell (born June 10, 1938), later known by her married names Ernestine Carter and Ernestine Weaver, is a Canadian former gymnast and American former college gymnastics coach.  Ernestine Weaver: was a nationally well-known Olympic heartthrob under her maiden name, but was also very well known as a college coach under both married names;
 * 5) Tracy Anne Stockwell, OAM, (born January 11, 1963), née Tracy Anne Caulkins, is an American former competition swimmer . . . . Tracy Caulkins: won multiple Olympic gold medals under her maiden name, and uses her married name professionally after sports career;
 * 6) Nicole Lee Haislett (born December 16, 1972) is an American former competitive swimmer . . . . Nicole Haislett: three-time Olympic gold medalist, married for 8 or 10 years, but legally reverted to maiden name after divorce;
 * 7) Irene Pirie Milton (June 10, 1914 – December 1998), née Irene Catherine Pirie, was a Canadian champion swimmer . . . . Irene Pirie: athlete whose career spanned her marriage, equally well known under both maiden and married name; and
 * 8) Katherine Louise Rawls (June 14, 1917 – April 8, 1982), also known by her married names Katherine Thompson and Katherine Green, was an American competition swimmer . . . .  Katherine Rawls: married twice and well-known by both married names.

There are intended only as examples; if I keep looking, I'm sure I can find a lot more variations on the theme. Bottom line: what names you include in the article lead beyond the subject's birth name is a matter of editorial judgment, but the article title should always be the WP:COMMONNAME. In all cases, birth name and legal married names should be included among the Wikidata "also known as" aliases, even if all name variants are not included in the article text. If you have specific examples you would like me to consider, please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI I I have looked at this but haven't yet incorporated it in the article. I will.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Stating multiple names in the lead is always a challenge.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My question was more basic which I may have answered myself, although I'd like some confirmation. I was troubled by the fact that the wikidata entry had a label on the top line "Tamika Raymond". I wanted to change that but I didn't see how. However I just change the label and that automatically change the label at the top. So it turns out to be easy it just didn't occur to me that the main label would automatically change. That leaves one question. Given that there can be multiple labels, which one appears at the top? My guess is that we've adopted the convention that the main language is English, so therefore whichever label is in English appears at the top. Is this the convention? (I haven't yet fully explore the language configuration option so another possibility is that you can change the main language and perhaps a convention is whichever language is at the top of the last is used in the top label)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy answer: there is only one primary English language "label," and that's what appears at the top of the Wikidata profile page. The label field does not allow for more than one entry per language.  If, however, you are viewing the profile in French, for example, the primary French language label will appear at the top of the page.  You are clearly viewing Wikidata in English, but you can change this under your user preferences if you want to practice your Mandarin.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK Thanks, makes sense.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it...
He removed it... as you said he would! Corkythe hornetfan  22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Corky, I saw that earlier. Now, I will go through the WP:BEFORE exercise, file another AfD discussion, and be prepared to argue whether 2 or 3 bare mentions of the word "rivalry" in the Mosstown Mulletwrapper are enough to confer Wikipedia notability as a traditional CFB rivalry on what is, in reality, just another game series between two members of the same sports conference.  The whole exercise in this subject area has the feeling of playing an endless game of Whac-A-Mole.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

note
It wasn't my intent to be "curt", and certainly not to any point of being rude or dismissive. Simply a result of being limited on time - my apologies for any implied slight; it was not intended. — Ched : ?  02:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, and good to know. Thank you for taking the time to follow up.  The longer I've been here, and the more I've seen -- especially with several high profile situations the last month or two -- the more I'm convinced we all need to practice a little human kindness, spread a little good humor, try to understand others, and work a little harder at being decent toward one another.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings
Thanks for the good humour on the RFA page. I'm an Aussie lawyer myself, but tended to deal with a different type of dirty work in the majority of my practice. I'm glad to see I'm not the only practitioner around here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, AHIK, nice to make your acquaintance, sir (or madam, as the case may be). There are a number of lawyers (or law school grads) who edit and of whom I'm aware.  Most of them are excellent editors who had the good sense not to include a reference to being a lawyer in their user names (unlike myself).  If I had a nickel for every contentious type who hadn't taken the time to read the pertinent Wikipedia guideline or policy, and then called me a "wikilawyer" for quoting the correct section and interpretation, I would be a rich man.  My user name invites it; clearly a bad choice, but after 6+ years on-wiki, it's too damn late to change it.  The user name has a reputation and a history, and most of it is good.


 * So, where are you in practice? In Oz or Japan?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw you copping some grief in the RFA talk page. It is a shame that the candidate withdrew, because I thought he would have a good chance after the original ruckus settled, but oh well. His reasons are understandable though. I can't remember why or when I chose my username, but I must have been fairly happy with my lot at the time. I'm not so sure now, but as you say, it's too late to change now. I am currently still in Japan, but not in private practice at the moment. I'm certainly itching to get back into it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * G'day, AHIK. I'm a big boy.  I took some grief, but not as much as I was dishing out, and not as much as a couple of folks (and their on-wiki reputations) deserved.  I was livid when I realized what they had done after reading through the article talk page thread; one of them had not only engaged in impermissible canvassing to drum up a slender "consensus," they grossly exaggerated the whole "racism" thing -- in premeditated fashion -- to scupper the RfA from the outset.  The candidate probably did the right thing; it's hard to overcome 20 pile-ons at the outset of an RfA.  Too many folks look at the accusations, don't read the diffs and related text, and add their me-too votes.  Too many people see smoke, and assume fire, especially when the allegation are over the top.  The candidate can try again in 6 or 12 months, he should be inoculated from further accusations related to this RfA, and he should get a fair hearing.  I hate that kind of mean-spirited stuff, and there's absolutely no need for it.  Brings out the Atticus Finch in me.


 * Anyway, I've never been to either Oz or Nippon and I would dearly love to see both before I start pushing daisies. I would especially like to see rural Japan, and I've always had pleasant fantasies about spending a few years in a sunny beach town in Oz.  Think I could scare up some work down under?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

John Cryan
I was doing exactly the same edit, at exactly the same time you were! 220  of  Borg 11:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Great minds . . . ," my friend.   Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Naturally. (But it is annoying! ) -  220  of  Borg 11:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Georgia Tech–Tennessee football rivalry
Georgia Tech–Tennessee football rivalry looks pretty questionable. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and nommed it for deletion. p  b  p  04:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tech-Tennessee had been on my list to review. These old-time SEC rivalries usually require a fair amount of background check before nominating them for AfD.  I don't like to get surprised by a New York Times front-page feature from 1951.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

NFL International Series
Please comment here. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes
DL, what are you thoughts on these navboxes: Category:Philadelphia Sports Hall of Fame navigational boxes. A navbox for each induction year seem like serious overkill for this regional hall of fame of minor note. Should we even have one navbox for all inductees? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Gee whiz. I don't know what to do. Cow's out the barn door, Farmer Weiss. Obviously, there is a proliferation of HOFs -- international by sport (Basketball HOF, Int'l Swimming HOF), national (Australian SHOF), state by sport (Georgia Golf HOF), state multi-sport (Tennessee Sports HOF), individual pro sport (Pro Football HOF, Baseball HOF), individual college-level by sport (CFHOF), individual university/college multi-sport (UFAHOF), individual team (usually called "hall of honor" or some such) -- did I miss something? I'm sure: they seem to multiply like rabbits.

You tell me -- what's worse?


 * Template:Florida Sports Hall of Fame
 * Template:2015 Philadelphia Sports HOF
 * Template:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame
 * Template:49ers Retired Numbers
 * Template:2000 Football HOF
 * Template:Pro Football Hall of Fame Quarterbacks
 * Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins
 * Template:Washington Redskins Ring of Fame
 * Template:1961 NFL Draft
 * Template:49ersFirstPick
 * Template:Washington Redskins starting quarterback navbox
 * Template:UCLA Bruins quarterback navbox
 * Template:1967 New Orleans Saints
 * Template:NFL passing touchdown leaders

And I have thought about the proliferation of HOF templates from time to time, largely because I generally hate minor navbox honors, and because of my own central role in this:


 * Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

In my own defense, I did nominate the following navbox for deletion at TfD:


 * Template:Florida-Georgia Hall of Fame

Yes, they do have a HOF for old-time players in the Florida-Georgia game, and someone created a navbox for it. It's only a matter of time until someone creates a Jewish-American Hockey Hall of Fame (assuming they haven't already) -- and a navbox. Rabbits, buddy. They're everywhere. And I despair, JW, because there are more users breeding bunnies than think there's a bunny population problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think some of those in that list are worse than others. I would leave the QB tenure navboxes alone.  I think there's a pretty legit argument for those for NFL teams and for major college football teams.  The Philadelphia Sports HOF looks like the worst of all of those.  A whole series of navboxes for a minor hall of fame?  Should I TfD that whole lot?  Also, I hate that University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame navbox, but I didn't want to offend you. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm still waiting for the Jewish-American Wikipedia Hall of Fame, so I can get my own navbox. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Be honest: you hate that it's blue on the outside, and orange on the inside. LOL  In retrospect, I would not have spent so much time reorganizing the UFHOF navbox and fighting to keep it, but it did lead to a pretty nice UFHOF article.  Somewhat ironically, other Gators editors and readers love the damn thing.  Neatest thing since sliced bread to them, because they can find so many of the old-timey Gators in a hurry.  So, I suppose the UF navbox serves its intended purpose better than most for its target audience (and who like the colors, JW).


 * As for your original question, you tell me: what would be better? Philly Sports Hall of Fame members (1) by induction year, or (2) one big template a la the UFHOF navbox, but with more tenuously related links?  Do readers really search for Ellie Daniel and Tug McGraw?  Does anyone search for Philly HOF members by induction year?  Would you like to just get rid of it all together?  If the latter, what's your TfD rationale when so many of these HOF and similar navboxes seem to be fairly well established?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me, DF. I've been watching your progress on the proposed MOS revisions.  Frankly, I found the previous RfC to be long on political correctness, and short on historical accuracy, with a great deal of finger-pointing and name-calling in between.  I am all in favor of dealing with the bundle of transgender issues with sensitivity and respect for the subject's wishes, but not at the expense of historical accuracy when the subject had a very public life and persona with notable accomplishments before the subject's public gender transition.  I will contribute my 2 cents, but given the rhetoric and name-calling of the previous RfC, it's not a discussion to which I look forward.  Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We did our best to organize both threads so that you can come in, say your piece, and leave and it will all count. I hope you have a good experience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I do appreciate the way you've structured it. The rhetoric of these emotionally-charged RfCs can exceed normal tolerances pretty quickly.  Speaking of gender issues, I was surprised to discover that you're a woman several months ago; I really had no idea whatsoever (maybe I'm just slow in that regard).  Perhaps that's as it should be.  In any event, it makes me appreciate your willingness to mix it up with the MOS Boys Club when needed that much more.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Question?
This isn't really a wiki question as much as an SEC question. Looking at these "rivalry" pages (which I don't understand how some seem to thing that every SEC game is a rivalry, OU doesn't consider Iowa State or Kansas State a rival despite being conference opponents.) I was wondering how say LSU-Florida (yearly from 53-67 not in 68-70), Auburn-LSU eight times between WW-II and 1992, or Kentucky-Alabama (not a page thank goodness) could go years (close to and is some instances decades) without playing each other despite being in the same conference. Did the conference not control scheduling or implement a rotation like we see now?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that the SEC only played a 6-game conference schedule from the 1950s until 1987, and most of those years there were 12 SEC teams (including Georgia Tech until 1964 and Tulane until 1966). In 1988, the SEC went to a 7-game schedule, making it comparable to the Pac-10 and Big Ten, and then to an 8-game conference schedule plus a championship game in 1992.  The SEC was the first major conference to implement divisional play when it went to 12 teams in 1992 (including Arkansas and South Carolina), which meant in the space of 6 seasons (1987 to 1992) it went from one of the weaker conference schedules to arguably the strongest.  Since the SEC expanded to 14 teams (with Texas A&M and Missouri) in 2012, there has been serious talk about expanding to a 9-game schedule with the championship game, so that teams in opposite divisions will play more often.  Florida alumni really miss playing Auburn annually, and it would be good to play SEC West teams like Alabama, Arkansas and Texas A&M more often; LSU remains Florida's permanent inter-division rival played annually.  Of course, if Florida wins the Eastern Division, it will play the best team from the Western Division in the championship. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Persondata
The only thing I've ever done on Wikidata was add interwiki links. Not sure how to add other info though. Thanks for the heads up. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 12:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikidata is really pretty easy once you get the hang of it. It's like the English Wikipedia -- but different.  (LOL)  Why don't you take a look at the Wikidata profile for Jon Horford which I linked on your talk page, play with it a little -- and we can talk later this afternoon or this evening?  I've been giving Wikidata lessons to sports editors for the past couple of weeks, and everybody learns quickest by doing, but it surely helps to have someone who you can ask questions.  I was the same way when I started with it.  Obvious stuff doesn't seem obvious when you're dealing with a new interface.  Anyway, we can certainly use more help with the transfer, and I'm glad you're receptive.  I'll be back at you later today.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Cowell
Hello, Dirtlawyer1. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Robert Cowell, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Robert Cowell to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * you need to do a quick review of the page history, and look at what each editor in the chain contributed. I created a redirect titled "Robert Cowell," about an American swimmer whose birth name was Robert Cowell, but was better known as "Bob Cowell."  That article is Bob Cowell (swimmer).  The redirect I created was subsequently re-tasked for the present article titled "Robert Cowell," about a horse trainer by User:Patrick bartram 1 on October 11, 2015.  I have no knowledge about the article creator or the subject, and I have no particular objection if you nominate it for AfD.  Given the history, however, you should notify User:Patrick bartram 1, not me.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; the page curation software sent you a templated message without my knowledge. I'll send the article writer a message as well. ~ Anastasia &#91;Missionedit&#93; (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nah, don't be sorry. I appreciate your courtesy in asking; it's an odd situation.  I pinged one of the more prominent members of WikiProject Equine to solicit her opinion regarding the notability of the subject (horse trainer, not swimmer), and if there are any additional references available she will probably know of them.  Good luck with it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed College Football Series Notability Guideline
Rather than fighting, I hope we might put our heads together to come up with a workable guideline for determining which college football series warrant a stand-alone article. The "rivalry" standard we have been using seems inadequate as a measure of identifying the most notable series in college football history. It has a subjective element in determining what truly constitutes a rivalry and results in frequent disagreements as to what type of coverage is sufficient to establish a series as a traditional rivalry. I've given it some thought and suggest the following framework (College Football Series Notability Guideline) to kick around, modify, etc. Hopefully, we can come up with something we agree on and then present it to the broader Wikiproject. Let me know what you think. Cbl62 (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessarily bothered by colors
Sorry to be a fashionista here. I remember I had trouble getting the yellow to show up on the Centre boxes without giving up the nice white on black contrast and inverting the colors, but it was eventually solved somehow. Having the same problem only worse with Oglethorpe. Just having black for all the schools that are black + something on the rivalry tables is irksome enough, but I can tolerate that one. Oglethorpe's gold is quite a pale yellow, and he who chose the shade did a fine job mimicking it. It is as if due to its paleness wiki only registers it as white, see e. g. Edgar David's infobox. It's different than the pantone/hex given in their university standards today, but they've also not played football there for ~75 years. Cake (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the college color module. It may be that we have to add a black or gray highlight to the pale yellow highlight of the varsity stripe  for it to register properly.  We have the same problem with the ivory/cream colors of Oklahoma and Indiana.  I'll raise the issue with Frietjes, who has done all of our college color coding.  It may take a little while to get a solution.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir. May you be blessed by an electric, stormy petrel. Cake (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Frietjes and Edoktor have responded on Frietjes' user talk page, using the orange and white of the Tennessee Volunteers as the working example. Orange is especially problematic, because white text on an orange background does not provide sufficient contrast per WP:COLOR, and all the alumni and fans hate black text on orange (looks like Halloween and those aren't their colors).  You can see the working solution in progress.  I will work to get them to extrapolate the general fix to the Petrels, and other identified universities with similar pale yellow, gold or off-white secondary team colors.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Florida Gators women&#39;s track and field
Category:Florida Gators women&, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. Given the relative numbers, I think the Florida Gators and LSU Tigers track and field athletes categories are large enough to support separate categories by gender.  Most of the rest are not.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was mulling over whether to propose to merge Category:College men's track and field athletes in the United States and Category:College women's track and field athletes in the United States into the higher level, non-gendered categories, but I decided against given the numbers of the bigger ones. The athletes themselves aside, I don't find the gendering of other categories (programs, team coaches) is a useful distinction, or one that can gather more than a couple of entries. SFB 14:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of similarities between American college swimming and American college track and field. Given U.S. dominance in swimming, with a relatively large number of college swimmers having notability by virtue of their participation in the Olympics or success in other international championships, the gender-based swimmer categories are helpful, and parallel the larger category structure of swimming generally.  Like track, however, there is no particularly good reason to segment the individual swimming programs and coaches by gender, because as you noted most coaches and facilities are shared across gender lines.  And frankly, most of the college swimming and track team articles are not particularly well developed.  Some of the top-10 programs like Stanford and USC don't even have stand-alone articles, while others like Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Michigan and Texas do, but the contents are often sketchy and out-of-date.  In the last year, I've focused on individual swimmer bios, but I really need to clean up the swim and track team articles for my own alma mater (Florida).  Priorities and time, eh?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar, I'm happy someone notices. As a humorous aside, I've been working on removing the persondata template and trying to at least one item to the wikidata entry in each case. I recently came across one where I couldn't seem to find anything to add, so I checked to see who did the wikidata entry and yes, it was you.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Florida Gators have about a dozen notable former women's college basketball players, and I recently blew through the category for Persondata/Wikidata review. I could see you were working through the women's hoops categories alphabetically because you had already reviewed the Persondata for the first four or five.  Your work with women's hoopsters is filling a coverage gap for Wikipedia, and I'm glad to see you're doing it.  Some damn fine athletes, and they deserve to have the high points of their careers covered in articles written in coherent English.  My personal window into the WNBA is through the former Gators who play or have have played professionally, and I really don't get drawn into working on the larger pool of professional players.
 * As for the Wikidata entries, I think I've got the drill down: I usually have one browser window open for the article so I can look at the Persondata and infobox, another open for the Wikidata profile, and a third open for Sports-Reference.com, NFL.com, etc., so I can confirm what I'm entering. I'm trying to do 20 or 25 per day, but we obviously need to recruit more help to the cause.  Even allowing for the fact that probably something like half of the Persondata templates are complete crap, that still leaves several hundred thousand that should be reviewed for useful information to transfer.  Those are daunting numbers.  Personally, I've focused on my watch lists of about 4500 articles, and I'm approaching the half-way mark.  I know the Persondata info is pretty damn good for most of them -- because I'm the one who entered it over the last 5 years.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been working with one window for the article and one window for wiki data, but your suggestion to have a third for Sports-Reference.com is an excellent one and I'm going to start doing it. Speaking of sports reference.com, it now is possible to link to the stats in the INFOBOX thanks to the work of Bagumba. Make sure to use bbr_wnba rather than bbr as the parameter.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do be aware that Sports-Reference is not 100%, and their support group has become aggravatingly slow to respond to well documented corrections. Maintain a healthy skepticism for all sources, even the good ones!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

NFL player project
DL, saw your post on WikiOriginal-9's page. What's the project involving the 15,000+ NFL players articles? I've been working on cleaning up a lot of NFL bio articles, e.g. Tobin Rote, that have been junked up with the spammy links to remembertheafl.com and footballcardgallery.com, and generally have a lot of formatting and copy issue. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Persondata transfer to Wikidata. Perfect for WO-9; he loves the repetitive detail tasks that require some thinking.  Given your wide-ranging edits, I need to get you up to speed, too.  Otherwise we are going to lose a lot of good information we spent the last 5 years entering into those Persondata templates for CFB and NFL players and coaches.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been simply leaving Persondata alone or updating it as usual and assuming that it will just be transferred over to Wikidata by someone else eventually. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the Bad News: "someone else" = Dirtlawyer1, Jweiss11 & Co. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Are other editors just deleting it before transfer? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Some have. I've been trying to discourage that, but obviously I'm not everywhere.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

William Dudley
I can help you with this. I'll take a look at the article tonight and post my comments here. Cobblet (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. If you have any questions about the existing text or references, you should probably refer them to User:MisterCake, the colleague I referenced in my original request for help.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Besides reference 2 (for which the DOI in addition to the Google Books link should be given), I also found a wide-ranging obituary of Dudley in the Vanderbilt University Quarterly which maybe User:MisterCake didn't see. The chemistry side of his life definitely merits more attention:
 * This looks like a good source on the history of iridium metallurgy. Contrary to what the text currently says, Dudley appears not to have been involved in Holland's initial discovery that adding phosphorus makes iridium easier to melt; his contribution was in finding a way of removing the phosphorus after it had been introduced (which is also claimed in Holland's patent, witnessed by Dudley). Together these two processes appear to constitute the first reported method of refining iridium, although Johnson Matthey claims to have employed a similar process as early as 1837 (see the first source in this paragraph, but note that it was also Johnson Matthey that published that article). Dudley and Holland started the American Iridium Company to market applications of this process, and Dudley later filed his own patent on iridium electroplating: both are details worth adding. (Dudley had several patents, some of which are mentioned in the second obit I linked – they should be listed as part of his publications.)
 * I think it's a bit too strong to claim that Dudley "discovered" the physiological effects of X-rays, at least based on the evidence available to me. Reference 2 gives a more detailed picture of the situation – he was one of the first to observe such physiological effects and appears to have been the first to publish such observations, at least in the US (see – this letter in Science should be cited)  – but stops short of calling him "the discoverer" outright (or it does, but then immediately half-retracts/qualifies that statement); and I would rather follow that source over the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography entry that's currently cited. Also I don't think we need the quote on Dudley and Daniel's actual experimental setup ("A plate holder...").
 * Unfortunately Dudley was AFAIK simply wrong in attributing the aurora to excitation of neon – it's actually oxygen and sometimes nitrogen that's responsible for the colour (otherwise the aurora would be neon orange). It's probably not worth mentioning in the lead and the words "answering a question which had long puzzled scientists" should be removed.
 * Rather than saying that CO "deoxidizes" blood, the modern way to describe carbon monoxide poisoning is that CO interferes with the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin.
 * I think we can specifically mention that Dudley was Vanderbilt's first dean of medicine.
 * After the obit I first linked to there's a list of publications that we can use to fill out the one in the article – right now the entries at the end have only the title. The formatting of the references should be standardized using Template:cite journal and also one of the entries is a lecture, not a paper. Maybe Dudley's contribution to the Vanderbilt libraries should be mentioned even though it appears the university no longer has a library specifically dedicated to chemistry.

An interesting personality (and I haven't even read what he did for Vanderbilt athletics) – thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cobblet (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's exactly the sort of background and understanding that I was hoping someone with a strong academic background in chemistry could provide. Would you like to make the changes you have suggested above?  I think you're better qualified to get the discipline-specific nuances and academic verbiage correct.  I suggested to Cake several days ago that I thought the subject had good article potential.  If you would like to help, there's a little green plus sign in your future.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. We may want to copy/move this discussion to the article talk page, where other editors can see how the article evolved after discussion.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Cobblet for refining my understanding. The potential for anachronism, such as with CO poisoning, was my biggest worry. The Vandy University Quarterly is a great source for Vanderbilt news in general; I indeed simply missed his obituary there. On the talk page you will see my apprehension in stating the aurora is neon; however the sources do say for somehow he put an end to scientist's confusion on the matter. Note the wiki page on the history of Iridium has the same errors concerning Holland. Glad you find it engaging, for Dudley was always doing something. Neat how even in 1896 they were called "X rays." To digress, I wonder if Dudley's father was on the Mississippi. Compare Frank Wall, another Kentucky steamboat fellow. Would rejoice if I could find George Dudley's obituary too. Cake (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, it's been a busy couple of days. Will try to implement my suggestions over the next week. The article definitely has GA potential although it could use more inline citations. Cobblet (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata + Persondata
I see that you don't use this useful script at Wikidata. You should :) It helps with birth date adding (and has a lot of other cool stuff). You can install it by adding to common.js page such code: importScript( 'User:Magnus Manske/wikidata_useful.js' ); You most probably will like it, when you get used to it. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. You can spread this message further -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir. I will take a look at it.  And I will have questions.  Probably lots of them.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

2 things. ..
First of all, based on your comments and participation here, you may be interested in this edit. I haven't even bothered to check out the recent editing history of the user in question, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that he was going around making similar, wholesale changes in other articles, too. I am in full agreement with you that, ironically, the obvious English-language WP:COMMONNAME for the generic article in question is indeed "peace pipe," but go ahead and try to tell that to the politically correct crowd and sit back and watch the skulls explode. Again, just FYI. Secondly, check out some of the recent edit history on Module:College color/data. Don't you think it's about time that we got this thing locked down? Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of using the WP:COMMONNAME, but there is an argument to be made for a more generic name, too, because most Native American ceremonial pipes were not peace/treaty pipes per se. The more interesting argument, which was completely ignored in that particular requested move discussion, was the widespread use of the term "calumet" in both English and French, which was often used generically (like "peace pipe"), but also has a specific meaning for ceremonial pipes of a particular pattern.  In scholarly terms, when using the specific meaning, a "calumet" can be distinguished from other types of ceremonial pipes, and the subject probably deserves to have a separate article (just like Britannica).  There were several things that irritated me about the RM, not least was the presumption of several participants to know everything about the linguistic and cultural significance of the term "calumet" when, in fact, they were transparently relying on the "we don't like the European term for a native American artifact" argument -- which is kinda silly.  After all, "ceremonial pipe" is an English (hint: European) term too.  I don't seek to give cultural offense to anyone, but I readily recognize the modern cultural phenomenon of seeking cultural offense where none was intended, or could reasonably be inferred.  I mean, is someone going to object to "Clovis spear points," too, because that's the "European" term?  At some point, it becomes a pointless exercise in political correctness, without any substantive meaning for real people in either cultural group.


 * As for Module:College college/data, I asked to lock the module last night.  The color module is no different than a template widely used on thousands of articles, and no one should be futzing with the established college/team colors without providing a reliable reference for changes to the established Hex or Pantone color codes, and then having a second person double check it.  We have more than enough admins and template editors who work sports to make the changes to a locked module.  That could be accomplished, in most instances, within 24 hours by starting a module talk page discussion requesting a particular change.  I suggested that the module be locked several months ago, and no one (including me) followed up.  The fact that we have one or more newbies edit-warring over color module team entries tells you all you need to know, and there has been a long history of several sock puppets messing with the team colors for college and pro sports teams.  Putting all of the team colors in one place, as we have done with the color module, is more temptation than these yo-yo's can resist.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to chime in, because it looks like you have been on the front line of this for the past week. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * DL: I has some followup questions to your request at User_talk:Bagumba, but I'll just monitor this thread here. One could say I'm semi-involved with some current color-related edits/discussions on some other pages, but I'm willing to avoid bureaucracy and IAR to get another admin involved if it's clear that it would avoid a mass edit war by others (not just myself) by forcing a discussion.  Even temporary protection might be sufficient to get things in order.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that an individual team entry within the color module may now affect dozens if not hundreds of pages as we have centralized the team color schemes, this situation is not substantively different than locking a widely used template. I just responded at length on your talk page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seem we responded to each other in parallel, but on the other's talk page. (Update: And now an ec on this page too!) Let's leave the general discussion here, unless you preferred it on mine ( 6 of one, 1/2 doz ...)—Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here works for now, but at some point we should probably move the whole thread to the module talk page (with proper attribution of course) in order to memorialize it for future reference (no one is going to look in our user talk page archives for this). I haven't worked with either of them yet, but I understand Frietjes has created similar modules for MLB and NFL teams, and something of the like for basketball (which has got to be interesting with the international aspect).  I'm happy for the college sports color module to be the test case for procedures that may be adopted by all.  I raised this issue with Rikster and Jrcla a couple of months ago, and they deferred to whatever worked.  I don't think we need to make a huge deal of this, as the need is obvious: let's lock the module, start the module talk page discussions for requested changes, and we can refine the procedures and referencing as we go.  Most of our long-time sports editors are aware of the team colors edit-wars, etc., and no one is going to object except newbies and mischief-makers.  BTW, there is color-contrast discussion on Frietjes talk page which may interest you, involving the contrast-troublesome colors like orange, pale golds and yellows, and off-whites.  Looks like we have a partial solution in the works with Frietjes and Edoktor.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Dirtlawyer1, I think y'all need to do what is best for the Wikipedia Community; whatever that may be. I'm fine with whatever y'all decide. Corkythe hornetfan  08:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Module:College color/data
DL mentioned a "newbie" changing colors on my talk page, and referred to its "recent edit history". AFAICS, there are no recent unregistered edits, nor newly created accounts, and reverts are sporadic. Of the last 500 edits, which date back to March 2015, I see 5 with "undid" and 3 with "revert" in the edit summary. I'm going to be semi-bold and ask if it is a particular editor that we need to deal with, or is it really a wider issue with multiple editors? If it's only one or two, we could seek improvement from the individual(s), and seek a WP:TBAN if problems persist.—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to any and all edits performed by User:Charlesaaronthompson, specifically. Really, though, this is just common sense. Most of the editors who have been performing legitimate updates on it already have TE status, and the remaining few who may not (Cbl62, Corkythehornetfan, MisterCake, etc.) could easily get it if they applied for it. As DL pointed out, even one bad edit here could screw up hundreds, if not thousands, of pages & templates. Do we really need to chance it? Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I've also posted a question to Frietjes' talk page for her technical opinion on other risks the module could potentially be vulnerable to, aside from the specific colors being wrong.—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I have seen (that is - tested) you can't really break it. If you delete comma at the end of line for some team, then you can't save the page. The same happens if you delete something else. The only vulnerable thing should be deleting some color code, but in that case most probably the default ones are picked up. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 08:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think template protection is appropriate at this point based on the policy at Protection policy. Please find a full explanation at Module talk:College color/data. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I mentioned a WP:TBAN being an option if needed for individual users. Based on what I have seen with Charlesaaronthompson, it could be heading down that path if things don't change.  Be interested if others impressions are consistent with 's comments.—Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this most recent block will help make them more cooperative.—Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have read the "template protection" section and the "high-risk" description, and I believe that the module qualifies for template protection on the basis of the very large number of transclusions in and of itself. The test is not whether it can crater page-loading, but the potential for widely visible vandalism.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, the worst case is wrong colors, not an insulting message on 1000s of pages (as is the risk with, say, warning templates). I could slap the protection with a high risk rationale, and nobody would bat an eye, but I really think there is minimal risk here with the module, and we are really talking about one editor here as far as content disputes.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Information concerning edits to University of Florida football, 1906-1911
I have been conducting extensive research related to the UF football program from 1906-1911 and have documented evidence pertaining to some of the discussion surrounding edits that I have seen to the article regarding the early years of the program. Specifically, I have found information in newspapers and other archival sources that contradicts some of the early history that is recounted in the UF Football Media Guide. Referencing your recent discussions of Fleming Field, for example, a Gainesville Sun article dated October 28, 1915 (page 2), mentions Fleming Field as the site of a UF football game twice. I am new to editing Wikipedia, and don't yet fully understand the process, so I am hoping that we might communicate so I can share resources that might be useful to you in your work editing this topic. Looking forward to talking more. Go Gators! --FredA 13:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.1.83 (talk)
 * Good on Fred. I tried many times to find mention before WW1 and never did. Cake (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Neal Walk "sportspeople" categories
Hi DL - I had noticed a while back that Walk has both the categories "Sportspeople from Miami, Florida" and "Sportspeople from Miami Beach, Florida." The article indicates he moved to Miami Beach and went to Miami Beach HS, and he was born in Cleveland. Is it appropriate for him to have the Miami category on top of the Miami Beach one? I'm not that familiar with the area so I don't know the relationship of one to the other, but there's no mention of Miami proper in the prose. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's clearly sub-cat overkill and duplication.  If a person is from Miami Beach, he's not from Miami, but I see that kinda cruft all the time, especially in major metro areas where they list the actual suburban hometown and the larger metro area.  I delete that kinda stuff when I see it, but it's been at least two or three years since I systematically went through all of the categories for former Gators athletes, and I'm sure my standards are tighter now than they were then.  I may have missed it then, or some crufter may have added it since.  Delete it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

John Hawes
Hi. If you can get a WP:CONSENSUS to go against the current MOS of not having flags in the infobox, then yes. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The current version of MOS:ICON was changed in January or February 2015, after several years of repeated controversies regarding the use of flag icons for athletes who are/were members of their national team or otherwise compete at the highest level of their sport in international competition. In pertinent part, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG now reads:


 * "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in the particular sport."


 * Please note the second sentence. This is not license to go crazy with flags, but a single flag icon as a symbol of an athlete's national team membership, such as having represented their country at the Olympic Games, is now expressly permitted.  This comports with what was always the standard practice for many sports on Wikipedia, the prior version of MOS:ICON notwithstanding.  See, e.g., the example and instructions for Template:Infobox swimmer.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "may contain" doesn't mean must. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * That sounds ominous . . . what do you know that I don't know? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys have this problem in football?
DL - I am getting increasingly concerned about the validity of place of birth for basketball players on Wikipedia. A common practice for player profiles for many sites is to take the "hometown" from a player's college bio and listing it as "birthplace" (RealGM.com is the most notorious for doing this). As I am sure you know, hometown isn't that at all, it's simply where the player lives. This creates situations where a player like J. P. Tokoto is listed as being "born" in his high school's home town (example), when it can be verified that he was born in a different state altogether (see here). The problem is bigger when the college bio doesn't contain birthplace at all and we are left to wonder if the profile is correct or not. Many otherwise reliable sites (like the Washington Post example above) use this shortcut when creating their basketball player profiles. Conversely, a site like RealGM is pretty reliable for high school, pro teams, etc, but I'd estimate they are USUALLY wrong on place of birth. Any insight or advice? You can hardly blame editors for taking info marked "birthplace" from seemingly reliable sources. I'm unsure how to address this issue, but WP shouldn't be furthering incorrect info in my opinion. Thanks for your thoughts. Rikster2 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rik, I see this problem throughout Wikipedia, and it's not limited to sports: confusing "home town" with birth place, which are usually the same, but frequently different. Even normally reliable sources like NFL.com and Sports-Reference.com sometimes get it wrong, presumably based on the information provided to the leagues, IOC, etc., by the athletes themselves.  Many 17 to 25-year-old jocks automatically translate where they went to high school as their "home town" and "birth place," and this is directly related to the casual misuse of the word "native."  In my experience, most college sports bios list the athlete's home town rather than birthplace.  As you know, I've been doing a lot of work with transferring Persondata information (including birthplace) to Wikidata for Olympic athletes, and I generally confirm the accuracy as I go, largely relying on Sports-Reference.com, but I try to be aware of of any contradictory sources.  SR gets it right about 95% of the time, and I think NFL.com has a similar level of accuracy.  When I see the magic "he was born in --, but raised in --" language, I will over-ride otherwise reliable sources like NFL.com and SR every time.  I can't speak to NBA.com, because I have not worked with it often enough to have a good feel for it.  I would not rely on college sports bios or recruiting sites because my experience is the same as yours: frequent and often obvious confusion over home town vs. birthplace.


 * As a side note, I am increasingly concerned how Wikipedia has become "self-referential." The writers for too many third-party sources, including some very major and mainstream news sources, rely on Wikipedia uncritically.  I have seen recent several AP news obituaries that included close paraphrases of WP sports bios.  In turn, those same sources wind up being sources for the WP article, thus closing the loop.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I DO feel college bio is reliable if it clearly says (for example) "born September 12, 1994 in Birmingham, Alabama," and many do note this in the "personal" section (see the Tokoto example). If it isn't spelled out in that manner, I don't assume any city mentioned in the bio is birthplace. Rikster2 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel like getting into an argument?
If so, click here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Start a talk page discussion, and I'll weigh in. IMHO, there is virtually never a need to include common diminutive nicknames in the middle of the statement of the subject's full name, e.g., James "Jimmy" Stewart, Michael "Mike" Martin, Jennifer "Jenny" Smith, etc.  It's just plain goofy, and I hate it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Official v. Common nickname
What do you think of the Long Beach State Dirtbags baseball's name? They're often known as the Dirtbags but officially, and the rest of the athletic dept., is known as the Long Beach State 49ers. Should we go by the official name (49ers) or should we keep them as the Dirtbags. I didn't want to make a requested move yet. Thanks. Corkythe hornetfan  14:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar with how widespread the "Dirt Bags" usage is, but I am skeptical that it should supplant the official 49ers nickname/mascot used by all Long Beach State sports teams. I suggest you start a talk page discussion and ping Jweiss and the usual CFB/CBB suspects for input, with notices on the college baseball, basketball and football WikiProject talk pages.  You should also ask Billcasey905, who has taken the lead on college baseball issues over the past several years.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn, I almost went with Jweiss before you... should've stuck with my gut! I will start a discussion and ping the usuals. Thanks! Corkythe hornetfan  16:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I notified the WP:College baseball guys, too, since this seems to be their territory . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I guess I was thinking that since there was WikiProject Baseball, there wasn't a College project. Thanks again. Corkythe hornetfan  22:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)