User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2016/February

Marcus Mariota
DL, could you take a look at Marcus Mariota and consider semi-protecting it? It's being hit by IP vandals, and it's getting difficult to revert them all. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You know I'm not an administrator, right? So I can't "protect" anything.  That said, I have watch-listed the article and will revert any further vandalism up to the extent of my three reverts in 24 hours.  If the vandalism persists, I suggest you visit User:Bagumba and User:Drmies, and ask them to semi-protect the article for 48 hours to a week.  If needed, that will usually settle things down, and prevents IP users from editing the semi-protected article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought you were an admin. I confused you with someone else in my mind, I guess. Btw, as I understand it, reverting clear vandalism is exempt from 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, it is, but it's tough to explain that it was vandalism when you're blocked! LOL  That said, I don't really own Wikipedia.  I just act like I do.    Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Typical lawyer - BilCat (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And it's pretty obvious that changing the player's name to "Doid syndrome" is vandalism, whatever it's supposed to mean. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Every once in a long while, I will come across some vandalism that is genuinely funny. Sadly, most of it is pretty juvenile stuff . . . and vandalism is still vandalism, even if it does elicit a chuckle.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. It gets frustrating sometimes, as I'm here to help write an encyclopedia, not to babysit someone's brats. - BilCat (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing one on touchdown celebration that gave me a good laugh but sadly I can't find it. Someone had put "Plaxico Burress invented a touchdown celebration in which he scores a touchdown and is subsequently arrested the following week." Lizard (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * One hell of a quarterback. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Shame he played for one of those candy-ass Pac-12 schools, though.  He might have been somebody had he played in the SEC.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he could have won 2 or 3 Heismans if he'd played in the SEC, instead of the merely 1 he has. ; - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All he would've had to do was play running back for 'bama. Lizard (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He didn't have enough stars for bama to recruit him though —   dain  omite   19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, the three IPs I just blocked geolocate to Cincinnati. Let's hope it's not an SEC quarterback vandalizing the article. I applied semi-protection for three days; do let me know if this continues. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That was very collegial of you...

 * LOL* While I understand how misuse of words/terms can easily become a pet peeve - like the things that drive people to road rage (pun intended) - I may also be guilty of its inappropriate use along with misusing the various forms and applications of the word "comprise".  I think what ends up happening is that dictionaries like Oxford and Webster simply alter the meanings to accommodate ubiquity, and traditional English flies out the window.  Having said that, I found the following and wanted you to notice how collegiate was added to the definition of collegial.  Depending on one's frame of mind and noting that we have quite a few professors editing WP, they tend to automatically think of "collegiate" as it relates to the university environment - "characteristic of college students" - therefore, based on my experiences with some college students, I'm not sure that it serves to compliment "polite" as a covariation or illusory correlation.  It would be kinda-like choosing bacon and asparagus over bacon and eggs. 🙃 Atsme  📞📧 18:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting -- I had not thought that far ahead, but the Merriam-Webster online definition suggests that "collegial" is derived from "colleague," which makes sense intuitively. That said, I strongly suspect that "college" and "colleague" are both derived from the same Latin root.  But, yes, I am one of those word people who is driven mad by the misuse and abuse of words like fewer, normalcy, enormity, etc.  Working with American sports articles, I see more than my share of malapropisms, neologisms and strange syntax.  Hopefully, SilkTork will accept my gentle nudge in good humor and in the spirit in which it was intended: "Stop!  You're killing me!"  LOL  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

 * Glad to do so. I hope it comes right.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi Dirtlawyer, is there any chance I could get you to contribute some answers here? Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Berryman-QPRS"?
On LSU Tigers football, it states LSU has an unclaimed national title for 1962. The only place I can find this national title claim is here, apparently by this guy Is this a noteworthy selector? It just seems like some Joe Schmo in his basement with a computer. Lizard (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think any national championship that doesn't have Associated Press, UPI or Coaches in front of it before 1992 is a little weak, but some of these rating services are weaker than others. My impression?  Clyde Berryman is bottom half; the Berryman "championships" before 1990 were awarded by Berryman retroactively.  Ask Cake for his opinion, though, he has rapidly become our go-to guy for discussions of minor NC selectors.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's a Berryman QPRS page that was created earlier this month, and Cake put it as "high importance." That probably answers that question. As if to prove my point though, it's complete right up until 1961. Lizard  (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, it's high only because the importance scale demands it for all such ratings systems. Berryman is by far one of the more...unique selectors, and I couldn't be more biased since he's the one fellow to remember the likes of 1922 Vandy. The NCAA recognizes him, and as Cbl will probably rightly insist, it is hard to justify steering clear of him without running afoul of "original research" (see our discussion: here). In my own opinion, any sense of "oh cool, somebody did not forget 1920 Georgia passing the southern torch to 1921 Vandy" gets exasperated by the time he selects 1936 Duke as national champion. As I noted in the linked discussion, the selection of 1923 Yale is the only thing that shows a certain wisdom in the methodology. Otherwise, completely agree - it comes off as Joe Schmo in his basement. 1922 Vandy would be expected to get waxed by either of Princeton, Cornell, or California. Cake (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Of the 43 NC selectors in 1962, Berryman was the only one to recognize LSU as his national "champion" -- retroactively, and 28 years after the fact. That's not just a joke, that's a bad joke, and kudos to LSU for ignoring it completely.  LSU has won three legitimate national championships -- one consensus poll title, and two championship game titles.  Southern Cal was the consensus national champion in 1962, having been ranked No. 1 by both AP and UPI/Coaches as well as 32 of 41 minor selectors.  Ole Miss was recognized by seven minor selectors (and claims it).  Here's the list for 1962:.
 * Yeh, the last thing we need is another "shared" championship with USC-West. Lizard  (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, the simple solution to your problem of which teams to recognize for purposes of your navbox is to only include consensus national champions or those recognized by AP and UP/UPI/USA Today/ESPN/Coaches in the non-consensus years. Including LSU in 1962, when LSU does not even claim it, would be goofy.  For years, most sports media recognized the consensus titles and the split AP/Coaches titles, and sneered at all of the minor selectors.  The AP and Coaches polls had legitimacy in the public eye that none of the other minor selectors had.  One can only wonder at the motivation at the NCAA in recognizing certain selectors as "major" -- especially since the Division I-A/FBS powers have intentionally excluded the NCAA from any official role in selecting the I-A/FBS football champion.  Moreover, for the last 24 seasons we have had a designated national championship game that successfully paired the no. 1 and no. 2 teams in all but two of those seasons.  It's redundant to even mention a minor selector since 1998, since all but one of those titles were won on the field in a title game between no. 1 and no. 2.  Of course, there was a lot of whining from teams and conferences that weren't invited, but since 1998 it is the system that all of I-A/FBS power schools and conferences agreed to.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a paucity of consensus champions in the era, and aside from Dickinson the polls don't really exist yet. Who wins the Rose Bowl and who was top dog in the East is probably the quick-and-dirty way. Cake (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was referring to 1936–1991. Before the advent of the full-time AP Poll in 1936, you've basically got nothing of significance that's contemporary.  The retroactively awarded stats champions for the era before the AP Poll are a joke, and we probably should not be giving any recognition to them beyond listing them in the CFB MNC article.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be all for not giving retroactive national champions any recognition. Also, where was the discussion about "primary rivals," if there was one? I was under the impression LSU and Florida were "primary" rivals, and the Battle for the Rag was huge back before LSU started turning it into a scrimmage. Lizard (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "primary rivals" discussion happened on the talk page of the Florida Gators football article a few months ago. Some non-Gator editor was determined to delete virtually all of the Gators' football rivals from the infobox, leaving only FSU and maybe UGA.  I and several other long-time Gator editors spoke up, and said that Tennessee had been Florida's most heated rival for most of the last 25 year, and the game determined the outcome of the SEC championship 12 of the last 25 seasons.  Arguably as big or bigger deal than FSU, and certainly more important over that stretch than Georgia.  Also the fan perceptions are that those are the big three, now that our series with Miami and Auburn are dormant/inactive, so Miami and Auburn were easy to drop from a space-limited infobox.  The sense of the LSU series is that it's usually a good game, often has an impact, but there's no real animosity or rivalry between the two alumni/fan bases off the field.  The teams beat the crap out of each other on the field and move on; no hard feelings, no sleep lost, no sack cloth and ashes.  The Florida-LSU series is definitely the fourth rivalry of the Gators' top four, but it is the official cross-division rivalry -- so if you want to re-add it to the Gators infobox, I certainly have no objection.  As an active rivalry, it belongs there.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Continuing the discussion about national championships; is it up to the discretion of whoever is editing to include a team winning a NC on a specific team's season's article? For example, 1946 Georgia Bulldogs football team has "National Champions" in the banner, as does Wally Butts in the record table. Yet Georgia Bulldogs football says 1946 is an unclaimed title. Is the line drawn anywhere when it comes to this? Is humanity prepared for a consensus on who won mythical championships over half a century ago? Will there be bar fights and rioting in the streets? Lizard  (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not up to discretion, but good catch on a title not claimed by the school. Williamson selected Georgia champion in 1946. Williamson too often has anomalous selections, though not quite as often as Berryman. Williamson has 1935 LSU and TCU as national co-champions. Cake (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

National champion navboxes
DL, saw you created Template:College football national champion (championship game era) navbox. Nice work. So, Template:BCS National Champion navbox, Template:Bowl Alliance Champion navbox, Template:Bowl Coalition Champion navbox, and Template:College Football Playoff National Champion navbox should be deleted? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think so. I note the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition navboxes are still used on the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition articles, but I doubt that satisfies your closed loop theory bidirectional functionality.  I say replace those last two transclusions and delete the templates.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Mail from Lizard
Lizard (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Lizard (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lizard (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia class at American University
Hi Dirtlawyer1,

I am currently enrolled in a Wikipedia class at American University and part of our assignment for this week was to join a Wikiproject and reach out to contributors. So far, I have been working on the Pro Bowl, NFL main page, History of the Giants, Darren McFadden and the New York Giants main page. Edits have mainly consisted of grammatical issues, adding citations and updating images. Is there anything else that a user should work on? Thanks, Spienciak (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me take a look at your edits so far . . . . Questions for you: What year in college are you?  What's your previous writing and editing experience (outside of the usual term papers)?  What are your interests outside of NFL football?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: US DMY
Hi, I used the auto-cite function, so you may wish to talk to the auto-cite people because it put it into European order automatically. Red Fiona (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Were you using one of the auto-editors, like AWB, or were you using some other edit-assist software? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a visual-edit thing. When you click an external link in visual editor it gives you an option to automatically convert it into a cited reference, and that's how it puts the date. Lizard  (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What Lizard said. Red Fiona (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will take this up with the appropriate wiki-people.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More specifically it's when you click a footnote in visual editor that only consists of a link. Lizard  (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

NFL division titles in NFL player infoboxes
Why not display division titles? They wear hats and shirts just like a championship win, i think it's a nice inclusion. User:Victorsmesq 12:00, February 8, 2016‎ Signature added manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Because division titles are not considered to be a "championship," but simply an automatic bid to the NFL playoffs. At the end of the day, finishing first in one of eight four-team divisions in the 32-team NFL is just not that big of a deal, not especially worthy of notice in a space-limited infobox.  And it looks ridiculously trivial for player like Emmitt Smith, who has multiple Super Bowl rings and All-Pro and Pro Bowl selections.  Bottom line: NFL division titles are minor stepping stones.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * +1. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle
Hi. I'm just going through some expired prods. I came upon Al Miller (strength coach) and noted that the creator had not been notified. While not strictly necessary, it is standard to inform the creator or significant contributor(s) that an article is being proposed for deletion. I have now left the user a message: User talk:Maurithus.

Many years ago I often would forget to notify users of such things. Indeed, there are several procedures we do that I can't remember all the stages, and exactly what box has to be ticked, and who to inform. I use Twinkle now. It puts some extra tabs at the top of each page, so if prodding an article, I just have to click on the appropriate tab, and it will do all the templating for me. It has various warning and welcoming templates as well as helping set up prods and various AfDs. Well worth having!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dirtlawyer1,
 * I have meant to come over to your talk page and thank you for all of your work tagging articles about strength coaches or assistant to the assistant coach articles of individuals that have questionable significance. I don't think there is great value in Wikipedia to have articles on every individual who helps out coaching a sport or is a sports physical therapist or the like. I don't have the expertise to know which ones are notable and which ones aren't so I'll leave the tagging to you. But I appreciate you tracking some of these down and bringing them to the attention of an admin. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey. The NFL gets so much sports media coverage in the United States that some of these "strength and conditioning coaches" probably do cross the GNG notability threshold.  Personally, I don't think the overwhelming majority of them are remotely encyclopedic in content, and usually the present state of the articles reflects nothing more than poorly written fancruft.  But that's a problem with Wikipedia generally: as long as our present concept of notability is our primary screen for inclusion, we are going to have more than few of these types of articles at the margins of very questionable encyclopedic content.  Moreover, we have more than a handful of editors who are willing to fight tooth and nail to keep very marginal topics at AfD.  Given the present minimalist interpretation of "significant coverage" under GNG, I don't have an easy solution.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Diminutives
I was going down the list on Tom (name) removing all the diminutives from their leads, and I had to laugh when I reached this one. Like really? Do people even understand why they do it anymore? Lizard (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, waging jihad on the diminutives has led to collateral damage, leaving "Dick Cheney" and "Bill Clinton" without explanations for why they reside at their titles. There's noting in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies/2015_archive that justifies the simple excision of all diminutives; when they are essential there must be a rephrasing that includes them without the apparently offensive sticking of them in the middle of a full name. This was anticipated in the discussion there; I'm not sure why it is being ignored. = Nunh-huh 10:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked the Dick Cheney and Bill Clinton articles; in both cases, someone has removed the quoted nickname inserted into the middle of the bolded statement of the subject's name in the lead, and added a "generally known as Dick Cheney". In my opinion, that is more than enough.  Our readers are smart: in an article titled "Dick Cheney," with an infobox titled "Dick Cheney," they understand that (a) Dick is an extremely common nickname for the given name Richard, and (b) the "Richard Bruce Cheney" named in the lead is the same "Dick Cheney" named in the article title and the article infobox.  The insistence by some individual editors on including the Richard "Dick" Cheney construction in our articles is, well, a largely irrational solution in search of a problem that does not exist.  It's not an accident that neither Britannica nor World Book nor a majority of other reputable encyclopedias identify their biographical subjects using the William "Bill" Smith convention.  FYI, I am not waging "jihad": I am purging quoted/inserted common nicknames from all articles that I edit regularly, but I am not roaming Wikipedia seeking offending nicknames.  If someone wants to do something different at the Dick Cheney or Bill Clinton articles (or anywhere else), and there is article talk page consensus for it, I am all in favor of permitting them to do so.  That was the upshot of the MOS talk discussion: the construction is permitted, but not required, on an article-by-article basis.  I can live with that.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, what happened was someone removed the nickname and **I** added the "generally known" periphrasis. I would have no problems if both changes had been made simultaneously by the same person. It's Lizard_the_Wizard that seems to be making these mass changes, capped off by posting here how stupid he thought a particular edit was; I just thought you should be aware.  As for our readers being smart: some are, some aren't. Some speak English as a second or third language. It's imperative that we be explicit in our facts rather than relying on them to infer them. - Nunh-huh 12:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When I see something like "Tom Robert Adrie Veen," I wonder whether "Tom" is his nickname that was simply inserted at the beginning of his full name. Might be worth a Google search to see what you find.  In any event, Tom Robert Adrie "Tom" Veen is clearly redundant.  BTW, I would steer clear of purging the inserted/quoted nicknames outside the sports bios and other articles we usually edit; having won recognition of the article-level flexibility to purge these when there is consensus to do so, I really have no desire to try to impose my theory of the case on other users who are adamant about keeping them in their favorite articles.  I am confident that most will disappear with time, but I also recognize that constructions like Walter Lanier "Red" Barber may serve a semi-valid purpose.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "It's imperative that we be explicit in our facts rather than relying on them to infer them." Personally, I don't believe that it is imperative that we explicitly state common nicknames/diminutives such as Bill for William and Dick for Richard in the lead, but you and others are more than welcome to do so any time you believe it is essential.  Let's recognize, however, that if we're going to do so, that stating William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton as a name/nickname in the lead is also semantically and intuitively clear as mud to those hypthetical readers who speak and read English as their second or third languages.  If a statement of the nickname is really necessary in a particular case, it would be better to say something like "and commonly known by his nickname Bill Clinton," which leaves very little doubt as to the intended meaning nor the actual birth name and nick name of the subject.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The important fact is not "Bill is a nickname for William" but that "William Clinton is generally known by his nickname", in the lead. As you have no objection to the explicit form, we are in essential agreement. - Nunh-huh 12:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Works for me, NH. Reasonable people can usually find a reasonable middle path forward.  That said, don't be surprised when some of the hardcore inserted-nickname types revert those leads to the William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton format.  The Bill Clinton article has been the focus of the argument for years.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to join you in reverting those reversions. Perhaps an editorial note would help avoid that necessity? No idea if it's been tried. - Nunh-huh 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. Admittedly I was a little wreckless in my purging. Lizard  (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I could use a hand
I think I might need a character witness. RGloucester started a thread complaining about Dicklyon and myself over at AE. It was promptly hijacked by SMcCandlish with a long screed of accusations, half-truths and non-truths. I could use someone to put in a word for me. None of the admins will answer any of my questions or requests for specifics. If you're not comfortable with this, I get it. If you go over there and say you agree with what SmC has to say, I get it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I will comment. I've recently made my peace with SMcC, but I have been following the AE discussion, and the whole thing is exaggerated and more than a little over the top.  Somebody needs to speak up.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping into the line of fire. This way at least the record will show what the issue is actually like instead of being skewed to one side.
 * I've tried to make friends with SmC. For a while this summer I thought we were getting along.  I just don't know what else to do with him. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What I said needed to be said, Darkfrog, and I should have said it earlier rather than hoping the whole mess would just go away. Hopefully, two or three of the participating administrators are still listening.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no such luck. My appeal's in twelve months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedians who understand non-profit corporate law?
Hi Dirtlawyer - do you happen to know of any Wikipedians who have disclosed on-Wiki that they are attorneys that know about nonprofit corporate law? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know a little somethin'-somethin'. What's the question?  And is the question state-specific?  Most of the basic principles are the same from state to state, but the specifics do vary.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is about the WMF, which is a Florida nonprofit operating in California. It is presently has no members, so is not accountable to anyone and especially not the community.  The board revised the bylaws here to remove reference to members, apparently because (according to our article on them, " the Foundation's board noted that the corporation could not become the membership organization initially planned but never implemented due to an inability to meet the registration requirements of Florida statutory law. Accordingly, the by-laws were amended to remove all reference to membership rights and activities."


 * So the questions are -
 * 1) really, it is not possible for WMF to have members?
 * 2) if it is possible what does that actually look like?


 * We're exploring ways to make the board more accountable to the community. This is one possible route.  Hope that makes sense. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Got it. Let me take a look at what Chapter 617, Florida Statutes, has to say on point regarding amendments and members, and then ping you back.  In the mean time, here are links to the SunBiz.org (Florida Division of Corporations website) entity history page, the original Articles of Incorporation from 2003, and the Amendments to the Articles from 2005.  I note that the 2005 amendments state that there were no members entitled to vote at the time the amendments were adopted by the board of directors and submitted to the secretary of state (March 14, 2005).  Unlike a corporation's articles of incorporation, a corporation's bylaws, and any amendments to the bylaws, are not required to be submitted to the secretary of state, and the bylaws are usually not a publicly disclosed document.
 * Now, let me say that it may be better to discuss this matter off-line, via email or otherwise. Last time I checked, my user talk page is watch-listed by over 100 of our fellow editors, and I really don't want to be put in a position of providing public legal opinions that may become the basis of some ongoing dispute between WMF and some particular group of Wikipedians.  I'm happy to discuss the general principles of corporate law, the applicable statutory law, and the particulars of the WMF's public filings, but I really do not want to be publicly quoted as "Dirtlawyer1 said," etc., on wiki or anywhere else regarding contentious WMF legal matters.  I hope you can appreciate my desire to avoid on-wiki controversy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am asking some other folks too (on and off WP), so anything I learn would not necessarily be from you, and i will not attribute anything to anyone on- or off-wiki, without their clear prior consent. if you would like to discuss more offline, please feel free to email me.  it is jytdog at gmail.  And if you don't want to, I totally get that.  I won't follow up with you either way here, so no one can know if you did or not. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, chief. I'll ping you on-wiki and then email you.  It will probably be some time tomorrow evening.   Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, btw, i was just pointed to this. apparently under FL law, you have to keep a register of RL name and addresses of members, and this was a big issue re privacy.   Lots of garbage analysis on that page but some useful stuff. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Bill Middlekauff
Would you see if you can find anything about his death? I feel with an obituary the article could be improved to C class. Cake (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Cake, it's been a whacky day here. I'll try to run a Newspapers.com search of Middlekauff tonight.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rather than clog up your more ambitious proposal, I went here to ask: yes or no on Jimmy Steele deserving mention in a general history of the Gators? Cake (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In the main article? Probably not.  If we did, the justification would be he was part of that group of four Gators (Crabtree, McRae, Steele, Van Sickel) who received the first All-American honors of any kind in program history in 1928.  Steele obviously rates mention in the relevant season articles.  Given the first-iness of that group of four, we should obviously mention Van Sickel's first-team honors in the main article, and we probably should do a footnote for the other three's second- and third-team honors.  No doubt I'm also influenced by the fact that Crabtree, McRae and Steele's All-American honors have apparently been lost and forgotten by the SID and UAA -- remind me later that I need to email the Newspapers.com clips for these guys to the sports information director so Crabtree, McRae and Steele get included in future editions of the media guide.  They deserve to be remembered.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to know with you we have some line of communication. Wish I knew who to whine to about the lack of Charley Moran in the college hall of fame, but I digress. I am ashamed to say I don't know a lot about Steele (or McRae for that matter. Steele came to us with Nash Higgins as I've said before) but I suppose such is the case for linemen of his kind. Hence he's not in the article, and I am here to ask. On the other hand, the 1928, 1929, and 1930 teams are the greatest for quite some time, and Steele is All-Southern on all of them, including the composite on the last. In a sense it seems odd to mention Bethea and not mention Steele. Crabtree probably deserves mention in the article already, and so I wonder if one should as a general rule try to include his All-American honors in the article. That aside, as a note to Van Sickel is a good idea. Been rather active cropping photos lately; I hope I've not done too many long ones worth saving. Some future historian of pants, perhaps, might get upset with me. Cake (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When you can, I've left a message for you on Kline's talk page, and there is one on the 30s Gator seasons talk page you might find of interest. Cake (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do, Chief. I'll take a look at it later today.  I'd be grateful if you would give some thought for the appropriate detail level for each of the Florida Gators football article categories.  I started a draft work sheet last night, and should be ready to post it on the WP:GATORS talk page some time this weekend as a starting point for discussion.  We've probably come close to maxing out the main article history narrative, and we should have a plan for where we add/allocate noteworthy historical program details beyond the major milestones covered in the main article.  Once we get started, I think a lot of this will readily clarify itself and seem kinda obvious in retrospect.  Having a flexible plan for how to develop the whole family of Florida Gators football articles will put us way ahead of all but one or two other on-wiki CFB article families.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Giving it thought led to the question of Steele. I feel I've probably ruminated on the main football article enough to handle myself on the fly, but must admit the penny has not quite dropped for what you would like to see. Like you say I think it will clarify itself once I see your initial proposal. Cake (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know anything about Speedy Walker? He was the big man on campus at Hillsborough High, and as a result he's the one my great-grandfather was snapping the ball to in high school and on the freshman team. Cake (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cake, I found very little about Speedy when I was putting the UFHOF article together back in 2011–12. He was a multi-sport letterman and an over-performing little speedster on Sebring's '27 Gators.  That's about it.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Midget" and "Iron" are some other nicknames found in the Hilsborean for "Speedy". Stanley is sometimes "Dutchman". You might check Stanley's talk page after Kline. Cake (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Busted
Despite pleas to the contrary, you are hereby exposed for navbox crufter that you really are.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bags, I'm happy to get rid of the NFL position coach navboxes all together if you can rope that herd into consensus on point. Personally, I'm keeping my powder dry for the next big discussion about getting rid of those damn season links in the player and coach tenures (they're low-value links, and the career history looks much better without them).  In the mean time, about 80% of coaches have the boxes, about 15% don't, and about 5% have the wrong one.  It's a mess, and I've found individual position coaches who haven't been in their listed navbox job since the 2014 season (!).  Whoever was updating these navboxes appears to have quit doing so consistently a while ago.  Having replaced all of the Infobox NFL coach uses, I'm now circling back around to replace/update all of the existing Infobox NFL player uses for all current coaches (I'm guessing I have about 100 more to do).  Then I intend to round up several of the boys and update all of the historical head coaches for all 32 teams' successions.  Collectively, that should lay down a fairly strong precedent for consistent formatting of the coach infoboxes going forward.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After muddling around with Peyton Manning, I'm reminded of my personal pact (from which I occasionally digress) to only add missing content where nobody else is editing. It just seems more efficient to add content to mainspace, instead of time-sucking talk pages.  Or maybe it's as simple as staying away from NFL pages.—Bagumba (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Give it six months. If Peyton retires or has a mediocre 2016 season, you may be the only one editing the article.  Trying to edit articles that are currently popular among the IPs and peripherals is almost always more effort than it's worth.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, at least we got rid of the assistant coach succession boxes. Those looked great when there was about 10 of them stacked on top of each other for journeyman assistant coaches. Lizard  (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Here's to hoping they just don't get replaced by navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And if a crufter creates navboxes for all of the NFL assistant coaches by team, I know how to find TfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Assistance needed
Where do I go to get this to be this? I let it go for a while and now I'm ready to take action. This user clearly needs straightened out. 🇺🇸 Corkythe hornetfan  🇺🇸 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

team->program
I'm sure you've noticed the IP going around changing "team" to "program" in the lead of all the college football teams' pages. Personally I don't mind either way, but that would go against the standard of pretty much every other sport's page (LSU Tigers baseball, LSU Tigers basketball, etc.). What say you about this? Lizard (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, looking around, the usage of "team" and "program" seems to vary widely among articles. Stanford Cardinal football, Michigan State Spartans football, and Texas Longhorns football use "program" while Penn State Nittany Lions football, Boston College Eagles football, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football use "team." Maybe we should try to agree on a standard? Lizard (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Lizard, there is a distinction, of course, although some people seem to use the terms interchangeably. The team is the players, perhaps including the coaches.  The "program," properly used, is bigger than the team: the players, the coaches, the athletic and academic support staff, the facilities maintenance people, the boosters, the athletic department, recruiting and the head coach's strategic plan for building the team, etc.  Context is all important, and there should not be a move to use one word in all instances to the exclusion of the other.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So short answer: it's not a big deal? Lizard  (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)