User talk:JonRidinger/Archive 17

Your reversion of my edits to "Mercedes-Benz Stadium"
Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to "Mercedes-Benz Stadium". I changed the hyphen to an en dash per MOS:ENBETWEEN because "Kansas City" is a compound. As for "accessdate" versus "access-date", the latter is easier to edit in mobile browsers (at least in mine) because it does not trigger the spelling autocorrect and it wraps on the short lines in the browser window. In view of these points, would you please be so kind as to consider undoing your reversion of my edit? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there! See MOS:HYPHEN, specifically #3, which mentions compound modifiers. "Kansas City" is a compound noun, and in this case a modifier, so would be the same as saying "Cleveland-based" or "Omaha-based". It's the same even though Kansas City is a two-word city name, just like "New York-based". A dash indicates an equal or balanced word relationship, which is what MOS:ENBETWEEN discusses, such as a "New York–Los Angeles" flight. The dash could stand for "to" (New York to Los Angeles), but it also stands for an equal relationship between the two words (flight serves both cities) and that New York is not acting as a modifier for Los Angeles. Also see the "wrong" examples: "Wrong: an iron–roof shed; iron modifies roof, so use a hyphen: an iron-roof shed".
 * As for "accessdate" vs "access-date", honestly, if that had been the only change, I likely wouldn't have reverted since both forms work in display (happened to be with the hyphen). The template pages show it as "accessdate", plus for non-mobile browsers and the Wikipedia app, it's easier and faster to both type and see, especially if it's near a line break. I can understand using it when typing on a mobile browser to avoid autocorrect (which is why I don't go and change instances where I see it), but I'd recommend avoiding mass changes to that parameter for existing citations since autocorrect doesn't typically correct already-existing text. It's different if you create a citation on mobile and use "access-date" vs. going through article after article and changing it. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, my reference to MOS:ENBETWEEN was specifically to the sub-sub-subsection entitled "Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space". "MOS:ENBETWEEN" is closest shortcut to that. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GA
Hi, Jon. I hope this finds you doing well. I was wondering if you'd be interested in doing a GA review on Briarcrest Christian School, or in the alternative, suggest someone who might? The school is (or at least was) a segregation academy, and as such, I'd really like to see a GA article about it. There are dozens of articles on segregation academies, but this one stands out, and I believe it very important that we have some high quality articles on that topic, a part of what at least in my opinion, is the biggest topic in American education in the second half of the 20th century. I understand if you cannot give the time to this. I am clueless as to the whole process of GA and FA review; I know you aren't. Any help would be appreciated. If you can't do the actual review, any advice you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks! John from Idegon (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a look in the next day or so when I have a moment! Thanks for letting me know. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:SportsLogosnet 1.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ASUN Conference
How about you leave edits be? If my commissioner tells me to change something, then I need to heed his orders. Please revert the changes immediately. Boopbee (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please become familiar with how Wikipedia works. The commissioner of the ASUN has no more authority here than you or I and the page about the conference is not property of the conference. Bottom line is many secondary sources still refer to it as "Atlantic Sun" and the article mentions that and the branding preference (ASUN), so there's no need to remove all instances of it being called the Atlantic Sun. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ohio Star listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ohio Star. Since you had some involvement with the Ohio Star redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Alsee (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of SportsLogos.net for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SportsLogos.net is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SportsLogos.net until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Willing and able to edit for free...
Dear sir,

Would it be possible for you, as someone who is familiar with how the Wikipedia works, to re-insert the images of Charleston's churches into the article in a way that does not violate any of the rules?

Thank you very kindly.

2600:1700:3BC0:E70:A5E0:A643:93D9:3F6 (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Please read the page at WP:IG, where it states "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article..." Generally, image galleries like that are discouraged except for instances like showing several works of art from the same artist, or clothes from a specific time period; basically, instances where a visual is far better at explaining the subject than text. The religion section in the Charleston article is on the religious bodies and the general religious climate and history of the city, not their houses of worship (or even about general religious architecture) so a gallery of different churches isn't appropriate. It would be appropriate to have one, maybe two, images in the section (depending on the size and layout), but any more than that wouldn't be appropriate. A gallery of buildings is appropriate for places like lists of buildings by a specific architect, buildings from a specific time period or style, or those from a historic district (though each of those would have their own articles rather than a section of a city article). --JonRidinger (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Kent music history book
I'm a few months behind on this per the publication date, but since you've done extensive work on the History of Kent, Ohio, article, do you think that info from this publication (ISBN 978-1-60635-347-9) is worth integrating into the article? Yes, there's a bit of personal bias in me asking, perhaps setting up WP:UNDUE, but there are a lot of notable names in there. Mapsax (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! I actually know the author (I'm mentioned in one of the "thanks" sections...he regularly asked me about certain facts and locations while the book was being written), but some info that can easily be integrated into the history article. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Army-Navy Edit
You recently edited the Army-Navy game page to change “eighty-nine” to “89” as the number is more than ten. In standard English usage one normally uses numerals for numbers over ten unless it is the first word in a sentence. In this case, the “eighty-nine” is the first word in a sentence. But I am not an expert in the Wikipedia style guide, so perhaps you are correct and it ought be “89.” Would you please direct me to the relevant Wikipedia style instructions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3665047379b (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch on that. I have edited the article to remove the 89 from the opening of the line and to give the sentence a bit more clarity. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of 2020 Playoff Exit from "Cleveland sports curse"
Hi Jon,

Hope this message finds you well. Can you explain why you deleted my additions on the Cleveland Sports Curse page regarding the Browns' loss in the 2020 divisional round?

I felt it was extremely relevant and well-referenced. The Browns continue to be cursed in the eyes of most football fans, and the play itself was likened to "The Fumble" which is a key moment in the story of the curse. Admittedly I do not have the longest history of editing Wikipedia articles, but I'm confused and would like to discuss why my entry was wholly rejected.

Thanks,

Garrett Lash — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrettcarrot12 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi there. If you're not familiar with the Wikipedia policy WP:RECENT, definitely look it up as that's what I based my removal on. It cautions against bias against recent events, which is especially common in sports articles. Not every playoff loss should be added into the "Cleveland Sports Curse" lore.
 * Basically, while disappointing as fans, the loss to KC hardly fits into the "Cleveland sports curse" when you consider: 1) it was during the first playoff appearance in 18 years; 2) it followed the first playoff win in 26 years; and 3) the Browns weren't favored (KC favored by 10). Further, while the goal line fumble has been compared by some to the infamous fumble, it was done so because they were similar plays and occurred in the playoffs (and both to the Browns), not necessarily because they were both examples of the alleged curse or had the same effect on the game. The Fumble in January 1988 was in the 4th quarter and was the year after The Drive, both against Denver; the fumble against KC was in the 2nd quarter. Most media outlets focused on the no-call on the helmet to helmet over any comparison to the 1987 AFC Championship game, and on Henne's completions and run near the end of the game that iced it for Kansas City.
 * You'd need some citations from sources like Cleveland.com, ESPN, other major news outlets (i.e. not sports blogs or tweets that may have compared that one play to the Fumble) that definitively add the loss to KC into the lore of the Cleveland Sports Curse before it's added to the Cleveland Sports Curse article. Most media sources, though, seem to be looking at it as a disappointing, but promising end, pointing out the progress made this season with Stefanski. If anything, the mention of this year in regards to the Curse is that the Browns are finally trending in the right direction since so many long streaks ended this season (18-year playoff drought, 26-year playoff win drought, and 51-year road playoff win drought) and perhaps a brief mention that the goal-line fumble in the 2nd quarter brought back memories of the infamous Fumble. It could definitely be mentioned briefly in the article on The Fumble since there were limited comparisons (as long as they are sourced), but nothing more than that. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Browns 75th Anniversary logo.
The Browns are indeed using the 75th Anniversary logo as their primary logo for 2021.

It is front and center all over their website, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook pages.

Now will they do something different next year or go back to the standard helment/woordmark in 2022? Perhaps/Probably.

But for 2021, the standard stuff has been put aside, and the 75 logo IS the primary logo.

Vmlhds (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The press release for it clearly shows it's commemorative; it's not replacing their main logo; its an additional and temporary secondary logo which they did in 2006 and 1999 as well. It's usage on their social media pages doesn't mean it's the primary logo; hence the NFL draft using the main logo for Browns draft picks and not the 75th anniversary logo. San Francisco also has a 75th anniversary logo and the league has used commemorative logos for the 100th season in 2019 (see 2019 NFL season) that do not change the main logos. There has been no change to the official logo. Schools and teams do this regularly and it is placed only on the appropriate season, not wedged into the infobox for something that is clearly temporary. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, please see Talk:Cleveland Browns. I explained why this shouldn't be included back in February when I uploaded the logo. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:RegionalAccreditors
Template:RegionalAccreditors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful photo for you
I was sorting uncategorized images on commons and found this image of President Herbert Hoover receiving the Kent Bearcats in 1929. I'm not sure if this is useful for you, but I figured I'd share. --Mbrickn (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)