User talk:Giants27/Archives/2012/March

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactlly is "right?"
G27, your last edit summary to the Cooper Carlisle article stated: "look at my edit before undoing; everything I did was right." Well, not exactly:


 * Per MOS:ABBR, second section, second paragraph: "Unless specified in one of the two tables below, an acronym or initialism should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in brackets (e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs))." An example of this would be the first use of "National Football League (NFL)," with the initialism "NFL" defined in a parenthetical following the full expression "National Football League."
 * Red x.svg Your edit did not do this.


 * Per first paragraph of MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms and initialisms.  Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia."  [emphasis mine]  For pertinent examples from American football, please note that "free agent," "nose tackle," and "offensive tackle" and similar two-word football terms are not proper nouns.  That means when they appear in an infobox, only the first word of the phrase is properly capitalized, in the same manner as capitalization of section headings per MOS:HEADINGS.
 * Red x.svg Yankees10's edit included the improperly capitalized "Free Agent" in the team parameter of the infobox.


 * Per Manual of Style, "When the elements are sentence fragments, the list is typically introduced by a lead fragment ending with a colon. When these elements are titles of works, they retain the original capitalization of the titles.  Other elements are formatted consistently in either sentence case or lower case.  Each element should end with a semicolon, with a period instead for the last element.  Alternatively (especially when the elements are short), no final punctuation is used at all."  [emphasis mine]
 * Red x.svg Again, Yankees10's edit included the improperly capitalized "Free Agent" for the Team parameter in the infobox.


 * Per second sentence of MOS:HEADINGS: "Spaces between the equal signs and the heading text are optional, and will not affect the way the heading is displayed." Please note that "optional" means "permitted."
 * Red x.svg Your edit removed the expressly permitted spaces as being "right."


 * Per fourth sentence of MOS:HEADINGS: "Include one blank line above the heading, and optionally one blank line below it, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more consecutive blank lines will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)" Again, please note that "optional" means "permitted."
 * Red x.svg Your edit removed the expressly permitted spaces (hard returns) after the section headers as being "right."


 * Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.  The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.  Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.  [emphasis mine]  That last sentence means if any fact is not recited in the main body text, it should not appear in the lead section, i.e., if a football player's draft status is not explained in the main body text, it should not be recited in the lead.
 * Red x.svg Your edit attempts to enforce the so-called "standardized" WP:NFL and is misguided.  A player's notability is virtually never based on the fact that he was drafted in the fourth round of the NFL Draft.  Try to explain why he is notable or why his fourth-round status is significant in a 12-season career; you can't.


 * Per WP:OPENPARA, the first section of MOS:BIO, "The opening paragraph should have:


 * 1) "Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Naming conventions (royalty and nobility));
 * 2) "Dates of birth and death, if known (see Manual of Style/Dates and numbers);
 * 3) "Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity);
 * 4) "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.
 * 5) "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.  Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
 * 6) "The notable actions or roles the person played;
 * 7) "Why the person is significant."
 * Red x.svg Your edit attempts to enforce the so-called "standardized" WP:NFL and is misguided.  Again, a professional football player is virtually never notable because he was drafted in the fourth round of the NFL Draft, nor is such fact significant in the context of a long NFL career.  There may be a justification for including the draft history of first-rounders and very late-rounders; there is none for including the draft history of third, fourth and fifth-rounders, etc.  Reciting the fact that Tom Brady was a sixth-round pick is notable because it provides significant background to his hugely successful pro career.  Reciting that Cooper Carlisle, a 12-year NFL veteran, was a fourth-round pick is meaningless and has virtually no significance to his overall career.  It's trivia that has nothing to do with Carlisle's notability and little other significance to his career, and random trivia has no place in the lead section.  When a player's draft history is mentioned in the lead, and never explained in the main body text, it also contravenes the explicit requirements of MOS:LEAD.
 * Moreover, the fact that a professional football player was an All-American or won a major national award while he was in college is usually far more significant to the player's career history and a much greater contributor to the player's Wikipedia notability than the fact that he was a middle-round NFL Draft choice. NFL players are presumed notable, but many NFL players are equally notable or even more notable for their college careers (e.g. Danny Wuerffel, Ricky Williams, Ron Dayne, Matt Leinart, Troy Smith).


 * Per the second paragraph of WP:PARAGRAPH, "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."
 * Red x.svg Your edit attempts to enforce the so-called "standardized" WP:NFL, which often includes such oddly placed and awkward one-sentence paragraphs, are misplaced.


 * Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."  That means that the opinion of two or three WP:NFL regulars does not trump the MOS or other Wikipedia-wide policies.
 * Red x.svg No matter how many times Yankees10 or any other editor reverts edits that were made consistent with MOS and Wikipedia-wide policies, pursuant to the supposed consensus of him and one or two other old-time NFL editors, the "way we have always done things" and local consensus do not trump the MOS.

I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm being a know-it-all (yes, I know I'm being a pain in the ass). But a lot of us have worked too darn hard to upgrade the content and formatting of college football player articles to have some goofy localized "we've always done it this way" consensus of two or three long-time WP:NFL editors get in the way of Wikipedia-wide consensus and MOS formatting.

BTW, there's an RfC being prepared to address the semi-illiterate "standardized" WP:NFL lead&mdash;and do away with it. Major points to be addressed will include those mentioned above, as well as the presumption that a lead section that is arranged chronologically is generally easier to follow and therefore generally better. The major thrust of the RfC will be what facts of the player's career should be included in the lead section of NFL player biographies, not whether another so-called "standardized" lead should be adopted by WP:NFL. Needless conformity is the hobgoblin of small minds, and it often gets in the way of good writing. The so-called standardized NFL lead is a perfect example&mdash;especially when it is expressly contradicted by the Wikipedia Manual of Style on multiple points.

Thanks for listening to (reading) my vent. I hope you will read and consider the cited MOS sections. I've taken the time to explain these points, at some length, because Eagles247 and others seem to think a lot of you as a productive editor. I've practically given up on two or three other unnamed NFL editors who persist in flouting Wikipedia-wide formatting and style points, effectively claiming that some unwritten local "consensus" trumps project-wide formatting and style. I'm hoping you will actually read the MOS sections cited above, think about them, and eventually decide to help edit and improve college and NFL football player bios in a manner consistent with the MOS. I've reverted the Cooper Carlisle article to its last stable version, but I have incorporated the recent updates regarding his free agency status, as well as the link to "guard" (not "offensive guard," as we have discussed previously). I'm done venting for the evening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to the headers. I was referring to the use of "active" in the infobox and your removal of a category, both of which were right. As for the lead, your lead is not good to me or anybody else in the project. You drag on in it and as such, I've edited it again. Cheers,-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, are you seriously going to go all hardcore over some spacing? It's annoying as hell from an editing perspective, but if you want it in the articles you apparently think you own, go for it.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For your benefit, I'll list what was wrong with your introduction.
 * "American professional football player who has been a guard and offensive tackle in the National Football League (NFL) for twelve seasons." Have fun updating this one every season he plays. Also, offensive tackle as a link in and of itself if fine. You also unnecessarily dragged on that he played American football, even though it's completely unnecessary to mention his nationality in the lead, as has been decided by consensus.
 * "He is currently an unrestricted free agent." See every other project. You can just say free agent in the first sentence. Waiting until the end is asinine.
 * Otherwise, I pretty much just re-worded yours to fix those issues.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and I forgot to reply as to why his draft status is important. It's important because it's how his career began. I have no clue how you don't see/understand that.-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'm still laughing about the "University of Iowa"; if that were the case, we would not be having this conversation. Now, that we're talking, I readily concede the "unrestricted free agent" point.  Brain fart on my part.  Next.
 * Per WP:LEAD, the first sentence of the lead should be a statement of why the person is notable. Cooper Carlisle is not notable because he is a "free agent"; he's notable because he's been a starting offensive lineman in the NFL for most of the last 12 years.  The rest of the lede should summarize the major point of the article, preferably in chronological order.  Sticking the player's college history at the end is not chronological and is confusing to anyone who is unfamiliar with American college and professional football.  Wikipedia is not written for CFB and NFL fanboys; it is written for a general audience.  A housewife from California or someone from Australia should be able to read one of our NFL player bios and understand most of it without reference to random wiki links.  Which is why we are supposed to introduce acronyms and initialisms like "NFL," and avoid using American sports jargon like QB, WR, TD, etc. in text.
 * BTW, I DO update the articles of former Gators every season, and I am tracking all of the currently active Gators in the NFL, so I don't fear the work involved of updating 1,500 or so NFL actives. I'm only tracking and updating two dozen Gators; Carlisle's article will either be updated when he resigns with the Raiders or another team, or the 12-season career summary will stand until we can say that he has retired.  In this case, Carlisle is notable because he has played 12 seasons in the NFL, not because he is a free agent.  Again, the first sentence is supposed to be a statement of the person's notability, and free agency has virtually nothing to do with the player's notability&mdash;it's just a brief, passing transition in the player's career.  Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.
 * Finally, the biggest problem I have with the "standardized" lead, or even your better version of it in this case, is that it's not chronological. In the first sentence, the lead should summarize the reasons for the person's notability ("American professional football player").  The next chronological element is college career history (university, major awards).  The next element in time is the draft history, if it contributes to the player's notability or was significant to the player's overall career history.  Finally, the lead should include a summary of the NFL teams for which he played, followed by a quick summary of the highlights of NFL awards and honors.  For significantly longer articles of players like Emmitt Smith, these elements may be expanded into a multi-paragraph lead section; Cooper Carlisle is a hometown hero, but his relatively brief article does not rate a multi-paragraph lead.
 * As for the statement of draft history in the lead, the question is whether it contributes to the particular player's notability, or is otherwise a significant career milestone in the context of the particular player's overall career. If not, it's trivia that doesn't belong in the lead.  The fact that Carlisle started his NFL career as a fourth-rounder is neither a reason for his notability, nor a career milestone.  Moreover, it's stated in the infobox six inches to the right, and described in detail in the professional career section of the main body text.  In the case of Carlisle, that's about right.
 * All of that having been said, if you will put your improved version of the lead in chronological order (free agency being the last event), I can live with it for the time being . . . I expect Carlisle will either sign with an NFL team or announce his retirement in the next few days, and the article lead will be restored to something closer to what it looked like yesterday.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Giants27, I waited two days for a response to my comments immediately above as a temporary compromise. Following a clear aqnd concise statement of notability in the first sentence of the lead, I have now arranged it chronologically: (1) college career; (2) draft history; (3) pro career history; and (4) current free agent status.  As I said above, the first sentence should be a statement of the person's notability; his transitory status as a free agent has nothing to do with his notability.  He's notable because he's a professional football player.  With some consideration, I hope you will see the correctness of that per WP:LEAD.  Regards.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do hope that you know you're going against age-old consensus amongst every sports project by not stating his current playing status in the first sentence. But, like Yankees10, I'm giving up. I'll let you handle all the Florida Gator player articles since you don't want to listen to anybody who disagrees with you on it. Cheers, Giants27 ( T  |  C )  15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DerrickThomas.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:DerrickThomas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)