User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 11

Take it
Here...William 02:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did. But again, I'd advise you to (re)read WP:BRD, and refrain from reverting anyone's reversion of a bold edit. oknazevad (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ferromex logo (2010 logo).png
 Thanks for uploading File:Ferromex logo (2010 logo).png. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No frills buses
If you really believe that Megabus is not a no frills operator, you might want to look at No frills. The key feature of the no frills model is that "the non-essential features have been removed to keep the price low." That is precisely what Megabus does, in the same way as Ryanair or Easyjet. Wifi is so common on transport that it is hardly an extra. Sleeper seats on overnight routes are no more "non-essential" than reclining seats on an aircraft. MegabusGold is different - the company's experiment to move away from the no frills model.--Mhockey (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

genres in the leads of actor articles
You did not reply to my comment on the Rosamund Pike page, so I wanted to contact you on your talk page. As a matter of interest, the articles for Jake Gyllenhaal and Maggie Gyllenhaal are Featured Articles and the leads name several genres of films they appeared in. The article for Angelina Jolie is a Featured Article and it has about five genres named in the lead. Ethan Hawke is a Featured Article and the lead names nine genres of films (I added the ninth). Kirsten Dunst and Reese Witherspoon are Featured Articles and they name several genres in the lead. This show that there is some degree of support for the practice of including film genres in the lead. What do you think? OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Motel
Hi Oknazevad! Can you please provide some context as to what is happening over at Motel. Is this a single editor employing WP:SOCKs to try to undo the Use American English tag? (If so, should this be taken to WP:SPI? – they are very slow over at SPI these days...) Or is there more going on here?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The short version is that the article was begun in American English, but an expansion in 2012 changed the variety to British English without discussion in violation of WP:RETAIN. That was corrected last year or so, with the discussion and consensus to put the tag on the page. But the user keeps attempting to change the ENGVAR against consensus and policy, based on some asinine idea that American English isn't actually English (see his comments on the talk page and edit summaries) while insisting that American English can only be used where there's strong ties to the US. He doesn't really sock, but some of his edits are from the same IP as the original ENGVAR change, which means he probably started as an anon then registered later, and now he's probably just inconsistent in logging in. In short, he is obnoxious and clueless, and is editing tedentiously, despite having it clearly spelled out for him that his actions are unacceptable by mutiple editors. (You'd have to look through the edit history of his talk page, as he does not archive it, though he has no trouble hunting out stuff in others' contributions to edit stalk people.) A block may be in order. At the very least, he needs a good trout upside the head that his utter disrespect for American English needs to stop immediately and permanently. oknazevad (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At the least, it seems like a slow-motion edit war has been going on here. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on this now. But if 3RR is crossed, I definitely think this should be taken on "upstairs". --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Should we proceed with trying to getting a block (or topic ban?) here? If so, where? (I've frankly been quite disappointed with WP:ANI lately, so perhaps WP:AN3?...) But, I agree, that based on editing behavior and this editor's responses at their Talk page, that this is definitely WP:TEDIOUS editing on their part. --IJBall (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd try WP:ANEW. It's not technically a 3RR violation (he's been quite good at gaming the system to avoid that), but it definitely is slow motion edit warring. The fact that he slinks away for a while, only to return to his nonsense tells me that some sort of block or ban is needed. Frankly, he's so disrespectful of American English, I think he should just take a hike. But I've been dealing with him so long at this point, I am really close to loosing my ability to be civil here, that I don't think I should be the filer. If you would be so kind, it'd be appreciated. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, give me 24 hours, and I'll get on this. --IJBall (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Graçias, señor. oknazevad (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I see he bit again. Filling report in the next couple of hours (sorry for the delay!!). P.S. There's a chance that, if I do file this, there may be blowback on your end too (Admin prefer to look "even-handed", even if "evenness" is not the most just result...) – if you're worried about this, please let me know! --IJBall (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, WP:BOOMERANG. Well, what do you think might go against me? All I've done is follow the actual guidelines, and upheld the consensus. My patience has been severely tested, but I've been really careful not to let my language get out of hand. I never got to 3RR, explained myself fully, and made my position incredibly clear, on the talk page (where I was supported by consensus) and on the editor's talk page. His intransigence, despite having things clearly explained to him, repeatedly, and how his own words show his error, is on him.oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But as a guy who was just taken to the woodshed for standing up to... well, I'll skip the details. But you never know what Admins might do with a filing. But I'm leaving you out of the written part of the report, so I'm thinking there shouldn't be blowback... --IJBall (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Filed. --IJBall (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WWE title pages
I would like to know one thing, why do you keep trying to correct my changes. I am a WWE enthusiast and all information I put is correct. Each time you put "Since the August 18th edition of Raw," is irrelevant to the reader. Stay off the WWE title pages as I will go back and correct those mistakes. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACoppola (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't restored that. I have reverted the image, as there's no improvement with the black background. It makes the belt harder to see, especially the leather strap itself. I too am a WWE enthusiast, a member of the professional wrestling Wikiproject, and someone who's been editing for over ten years. You don't get to tell me to stay off pages, Junior! (Not intended as an actual insult, just a little ribbing. Read it with a Chris Jericho impression.) But the fundamental point remains that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and if people disagree, it's time to talk. See the essay WP:BRD, it is the usual practice here. Would like you to stick around, as you definitely have an interest and could be quite a benefit. oknazevad (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am saying stay off pages, I am letting you know that I will correct any changes you make. I have been editing for quite sometime, but only the WWE pages. You only have over 100,000 edits because you have no life and job. Do you want a gold plaque for editing for over ten years!?!?! I have been editing as well, just under an anonymous alias. Also, don't lecture me when you have tons of grammatical errors throughout your rant. Referencing "and I people," which should say " and I of all people," or "and I of people." It also wouldn't hurt to know that it isn't proper to start a sentence with a conjunction.

P.S. "editing" not "editting" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MACoppola (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, Junior. I tried to be nice and collaborative, to work with you, to bring you into the community. Instead you take a flying leap off the civility train and into insults, and threats to edit war with me. Easy way to get yourself indefinitely blocked. Here's the facts. I work three jobs, and have a girlfriend. I also have an slightly overactive brain that retains way too much trivia, and Wikipedia gives me an outlet for that. I also think it helps inform the world, which appeals to me. So that's why I'm here. You, on the other hand, are to never be here again. You are not worth wasting my time on, and I ask you to stay the hell off my talk page. (And, yes, I can do that and you are obligated to).oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC) PS. Typos happen, thanks for pointing them out. Oh, and I also learned a long time ago that the prescriptive commands of elementary school English teachers are often not reflected by the actual practice of educated adults. In other words, Junior, there's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction. Maybe read some grown-up books on using English.

Pit bull capitalization question
Hi Oknazevad. I understand the issue with capitalization on the pit bull article, and that it's inconsistent throughout the article. I guess I was hoping my edit might help add some consistency.

Given your statement about the breed being developed in England though, I'm not quite sure how that would mean that all references should be capitalized? Sorry if I am being a bit obtuse, but I am new to wikipedia, and hoping to make some solid contributions, so I would appreciate hearing anything you are willing to share. --Jonddunn (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what my recent reference to England has to do with capitalization. My purpose in mentioning England in the edit summary was because the edit I was reverting removed the origins of the type as fighting dogs in England, skipping straight to their later use in the U.S., in contradiction to the many sources in the article.
 * As for the capitalization, the names of specific dog breeds are capitalized as proper nouns. I compare it to car models; while there were literally millions of them made, all Volkswagen Beetles are still capitalized. On the other hand, general dog types, like "pit bull" or "hound" are lowercase. Your edits were quite good, actually. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Thank you for the clarification. That was my bad in misunderstanding what your revert was all about! And thank you for saying my edit was on on point. I think it's probably worth me going in and doing the same for all references to ensure consistency. --Jonddunn (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Level crossing accidents CFD
As the last participant in the Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States CFD, I suggested that it be renamed to Category:Railroad crossing accidents in the United States instead of the proposed Category:Grade crossing accidents in the United States. An admin closed the proposal as "move to Grade crossing...", but he also noted that another CFD regarding my proposal would be a valid option, so I've nominated Grade crossing accidents in the USA for renaming to Railroad crossing accidents in the USA. Please visit Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 5 and offer your opinion, if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

ECHL as a historical reference
I don't particularly like reverting so I will post here and let you decide. In 2000 when the Hampton Roads Admirals last played in the ECHL it was in fact properly called the East Coast Hockey League. They officially changed the acronym to the name of the league starting in 2003. It is a naming convention used for many other teams and people when it comes to historical names such as any team that played for the United Hockey League (UHL) or the International Hockey League (2007–2010) (IHL) despite them being the same league but changing names. Essentially I wrote that the Admirals played in the league when it was only called the East Coast Hockey League (as it was the first reference to the league) and never when it was only the ECHL. I left later references to the ECHL as you would if it had been referred to as National Hockey League to NHL and American Hockey League to AHL. I have only been trying to make many of these neglected team pages more consistent and correct in terms of format and content. Yosemiter (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * D'oh! You're right. My bad. Was confusing myself with the new club. Reverting now.oknazevad (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just have a strong dislike for revert wars and remember watching an East Coast Hockey League game against San Diego in 2001 or so and thinking they should change the league name after absorbing the WCHL. I mostly gnome around minor league pages but if I do something wrong I am open to alternatives. Yosemiter (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Evan Williams
It seems we have a couple of differences of opinion about Evan Williams. Owen Williams (engineer)'s full name was apparently Evan Owen Williams, so it seems that he could reasonably be referred to as Evan Williams. Also, Evan Williams the Kentucky person is clearly not the same thing as Evan Williams the brand of whiskey, although the two topics are obviously closely related. Per WP:DAB, a topic doesn't need to have a separate article about it in order to be something worthy of disambiguating. For that reason, I think the person is worth mentioning as well as the whiskey that was named after him. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize about the engineer. My bad. And I don't disagree with including a mention of Evan Williams the whiskey's namesake, but it doesn't need a second link to the same page; that's just WP:OVERLINK. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unincorporated communities in Bergen County
Hello. Before undoing several hours of work, which actually involved references, would you mind showing a reference proving your point of view? Thank you. Famartin (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to know where anyone else thought dumping a list of old federal databases to create some rather empty stubs about places that don't actually exist as anything than names on maps. Seriously, these are just leftovers from before the county was actually developed and completely incorporated. Because don't forget that every part of New Jersey is incorporated into a municipality. There really are no unincorporated communities in New Jersey and old neighborhood names are not unincorporated communities. These federal databases don't accurately describe New Jersey at all. I notice it every year, when looking at the World Almanac (which I do buy every year), where the listings of towns note many New Jersey municipalities as being unincorporated CDPs, just because they're called townships, despite the fact that townships in New Jersey are incorporated municipalities. In short, these are neighborhoods, not independent places needing separate articles. oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an opinion, not really a reference proving your feeling of their unimportance. As far as "neighborhoods not needing articles", there are quite a few neighborhoods which have independent articles around the country, some of which are quite long.  Also, many articles that became great were stubs at first.  I'm sure that if someone did more research, they would be able to make much longer articles out of many of them.  Take Grantwood, which I notice you conveniently left on the list of Bergen County unincorporated communities.  I started that as a stub, now its much longer.  A group encyclopedia means that some people can start things, others can add more along the way, until eventually you can end up with something great.  Famartin (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm posting here as it relates to Template talk:Bergen County, New Jersey. With regard to the above, I would suggest that one familiarie oneself with local geography and history before dumping information picked up from a notorious unreliable site and other indiscriminate lists, and should provide additional references that give an indication that there is a likely chance that place name stub might be be expanded, which is not the case with most, if one does even more than a cursory search.Djflem (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The sources you are using, Famartin, are simply unreliable. They should not be relied on at all. You must find additional sources to ensure that these supposed places, which I know for a fact don't exist in some cases, actually exist. Either way, I am returning Hillsdale Manor to a redirect. The borough of Hillsdale is a small town of approximately 10,000 people in just under 3 square miles. There is no distinguishable unincorporated area as the entire town is continuous suburban development. "Hillsdale Manor" is a former rail facility, not an unincorporated community. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Hillsdale Manor, New Jersey concur w/ above.Djflem (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Intermission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gettysburg (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Just unacceptable"
You probably meant my edit, but I'll take it as a comment on the actual practice I was documenting, too. Thanks for reverting my pointy edit. I just hope some others will notice. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I meant nothing but your unacceptably pouty edit. You know better. You're just whining because people didn't jump into agreement with you. Get over yourself. As for the practice, if that's the consensus that's emerging then the guideline should be ammended to match. Guidelines describe existing practice, they do not dictate it. The tail does not wag the dog. oknazevad (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so much about disagreement with my desired as about inability to discuss coming to agreement as a group. Leaving things in the maximally broken state is all that an RM could do; so I'm trying to provoke some action.  I might try some more.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

New York's good article
I nominated New York state as a good article. I wonder why you remove the banner of New York good article.

Econ Nobel
Please do not make edits insinuating that they are conclusively implied by Talk page discussion when in fact they aren't. The whole question of whether it's "erroneous" to call it the Nobel Prize in Economics is POV (probably on both sides.) I let the facts speak for themselves. Among the facts I dredged up: the institution owns the Nobel Prize tradename elects not to prosecute those who call it the Nobel Prize in Economics. Moreover, they /used/ to have the right to prosecute, but explicitly surrendered that right quite a long time ago. And they are about as "official" a voice as you're going to find. So Wikipedia is being quite reasonable in calling the prize what almost everybody else calls it, rather than by a name hardly anybody outside Scandinavia would recognise. But please, feel free to weigh in again on this issue after the trade name rights for "Nobel Prize" have been transferred to you. Until then ... Yakushima (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Arch Bridge revert
If you insist on the broken MDY date format, used as far as I know only in one country, you need to convert the WHOLE article, not just one instance. Also, before reverting someone, it's considered a good idea to talk to them first to get agreement with what you have in mind. It's even possible you'll get help. - Denimadept (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Might want to read up on the date format thing. See, there's this guideline called WP:TIES, which states that when a subject has strong ties to a particular country that form of English should be used, including date formats. As the bridge is wholly within the United States, the MDY date format that is prominent in the U.S. should be used. That's the accepted, Wikipedia wide consensus. I don't need to get your agreement to apply the standard practice of the site, and I surely don't need to get your help, being that a) I've been here longer than you (since 2004), b) I helped write the guideline, and c) you're clearly missing the point. save the patronizing tone, and the PoV-pushing. I will revert you again, immediately, and will consider any attempt to revert again a clear case of disrespecting consensus. That will lead to a report at an appropriate notice board. Not a good idea, as the guideline is clear as a sunny day. oknazevad (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) PS, more that one country uses MDY.


 * Oh dear, you don't get what you're doing. Congrats on being here longer.  Congrats on writing bad policy.  And congrats on being condescending.  At least you finally completed the job. - Denimadept (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox rail line/service
Hi, you removed the templates from  and ; but I really don't think that you should have done that, because you had already !voted "Strongest possible oppose", so you're kinda WP:INVOLVED, like myself. Please consider reverting your two edits.

If you had not been involved, your action would have been incomplete, because you didn't do anything with Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 2, so would have appeared that the discussion was still open. At WP:TFDCI, the omitted steps were steps 3 & 5 under "Close", and step 1.1 under "Implement the close". -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad. I figured it was okay since the nominator withdrew the nomination. I'll revert. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Castlevania Template
Responding to your edit: then under that logic why even bother having a spin-off section if everything published by Konami is fair game? Order of Shadows has no connection to the main games whatsoever. If Judgment and Harmony of Despair are considered spin-offs, then with more reason OoS should be grouped with them. Jotamide (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It has connections to the main series in that it's a platform action game, not puzzle game or other sort of typical mobile spin off. In short it's the same genre and intended as part of the series (even if a minor entry), unlike the others, which, by nature of their totally different gameplay genres, are clearly not intended as part of the main series. Different entries have had different development teams (not a deal breaker), and in-universe canon is meaningless to the out-of-universe, real world perspective we write in. It's not a spin off, even if it sucked (and I played it; it sucked). The platform doesn't determine this. oknazevad (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey
Please discuss tagged material which uses WP:UNDUE WP:POV adjectives, unsupported with data. Student7 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Clone Wars
Hi Oknazevad, is there any chance I could trouble you to clear up some of the language here? Typo aside, from the perspective of a casual reader, I have no idea what a story reel format is. Story arc I think is a common enough concept. Any attempt at clarification would be appreciated! Thanks, and sorry for the imposition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Story reels are explained two sections up in the Crystal Crisis on Utapau subsection. That's why I didn't think it needed repetition within the same main section. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! Helpful. I've changed the term to "animatic" because I think that's more commonly understood, and "story reel" required a translation in the prose already. Makes more sense in my opinion to go with the more common term. If you hate it, please ping me. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Spuyten Duyvil derailment article move and revert
Thanks. I had left a note and KTR's page this morning, but I didn't feel like just out-and-out reverting before he understood. However, once I had done that, I have no problem with you reverting.

Of course, consider the point I conceded to him—if we keep not creating July 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, then we can only blame ourselves when things like this happen. So, I think, I will be creating that article at some point this weekend ... I have found sources and there's a whole category at Commons with images to use. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can, that's great. I think it does pass the WP:GNG based on the amount of coverage it got, especially the ensuing discussion about the implications of freight and passenger trains sharing the tracks, which is what elevates it above just another derailment. If you get a draft up and running, drop me a note, and i give it a once over. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * re the barnstar: Thank you very much! Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You deserve it! Great work! oknazevad (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

TSR Games
If it helps, I believe TSR Games was started by people with close connections to the original TSR. I do not know what they did regarding copyright, but I can tell you that their "Gygax Magazine" looks so much like a copy of early-1980s Dragon magazine that they must have either gotten permission from Wizards to do that, or TSR's original license for some things must have lapsed. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Close connections? Sure, Gary Gygax's sons are apparently part of the group. And the similarity of page layout and such inn the magazine is nostalgicly intentional. But the idea that the current company should be confused with the former (which putting it on the same page does) bothers me; it is a separate company and should have a separate article, if it is notable. The fact that the company produces one quarterly magazine that very few people have heard of makes me question it. Frankly, I wonder if the mention there is not just WP:UNDUE, but also promotional.
 * And I dispute the idea that WotC could force a name change in three second. The do actively use the TSR trademark everyday by virtue of dndclassics.com, their webstore for archive PDFs. None have been altered to remove the TSR name. I would say WotC has a very good case that the new company could cause market confusion, thereby undermining their trademark. We cannot be used to support such activities. So, it should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

ECW Arena
I think "events" would be a better term than both "shows" and "cards", and could apply to all events held at the venue - yes? TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good call. oknazevad (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join new discussions on Ave Maria University talk page
Hi! In light of a flurry of recent edits to Ave Maria University, I've opened a couple of new discussions at Talk:Ave Maria University. We should probably work to achieve consensus there. I'll be inviting all the named users who have been editing at AMU. Thanks in advance for your input!Jacona (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Indiana Jones (franchise)
Hi. I personally see no reason why the shortened titles of the Indiana Jones films can't be placed into the infobox. We already know that they have "Indiana Jones" as a prefix and as the whole article is about the franchise, there is no reason for the prefixes to be there as they clutter the infobox. This is also used on other pages for franchises such as Star Wars, Terminator and G.I. Joe where the prefixed titles would also clutter the infobox. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem is that not all films have "Indiana Jones" in the title. Despite the more recent home video packaging, the first film's full title remains Raiders of the Lost Ark. It'll the full titles are remove from the infobox, that information is lost. That's why I reverted, just as I've reverted others who have tried to add "Indiana Jones" to the title of Raiders in the past. oknazevad (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)
Hello, I was wondering what makes you say that this title was not retired until the day after TLC 2013? Ozdarka (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check the talk page from the time it was unified/retired. The actual retirement wasn't announced until the next day. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at that conversation, which took place under the heading "Final Champion?". There's no indication that the title wasn't retired until Raw. You'll have to be more specific in pointing to the source that says the reign lasted beyond the night of the unification. Ozdarka (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Tennis sidebar template
You've been here awhile so I'm guessing you know how it works here. If you make a change to a template (or really anything), and it gets reverted you DO NOT REVERT BACK. You bring it to talk so others can find a compromise. I can certainly mention what you are attempting at Tennis Project talk and it is likely you will be reverted all the way back to the original template you didn't create. I had no problem with the re-forming to add the VTE even though it made the template longer. I hated the centering, making it wider and making it much too long. Most of these items are on the article bottom in other nav bars. Adding each Major is template-bloat afaic. I'll discuss changes before bringing it to the attention of others at Tennis Project, but not before you self revert it back. Forcing a change is unacceptable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I just don't think the template is complete without them; the Grand Slams by their nature are far above any other individual events on the tour, with only the WTF approaching (which is why it is also explicitly linked). Honestly, I think it would work better as a footer, instead of a sidebar, myself. I can see what it was intended to do: contain the links to the overview articles of the various levels of the events in the men's tour(s), which is why I was trying to rescue it by making it into an actual template (not a bunch of bloated code does on to each page, as it was when I found it) and clean it up somewhat using the existing tools for sidebars that we have. I really don't think it's bloated at all, especially compared to some other overview sidebar navboxes I've seen. But I can largely agree that it'd work better as a footer navbox.
 * Truth of the matter, the abbreviations were a genuine hindrance to comprehension and navigation, as they assume readers' knowledge, which I think is a mistake. I've been noticing that at some of the tennis pages, which I've recently begun looking at more thoroughly lately (I've been around for a while at Wikipedia, but for tennis-related things, I am a Johnny-come-lately). As a set of fresh eyes on these pages, I'd like to offer the general constructive criticism that sometimes the project's standards are incomprehensible to those who don't already know those standards, or other tennis jargon. Like the draw listings in the tournament infoboxes. With no key, nor any additional explanation in the body text (despite that infoboxes supposed to summarize the article), the abbreviations used are completely inscrutable. It may make sense to the project members, but how does that help the average reader who arrives at an article from a Google search (because they don't know anything about tennis) and is not only not a tennis wikiproject member, but not even a regular wikipedian? It's not uncommon from any wikiproject to become internally focused like that (I've certainly seen it from transportation-related wikiprojects), but it must be guarded against. In other words, I'd like to get involved, if only to add some fresh eyes to the project. oknazevad (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would love to have you involved, but only if you follow protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)