User talk:X96lee15/Archive 2017

Only need to link first time in infobox
Why is that? --NeptuneSpeared (talk • contribs) 19:40, February 5, 2017‎ (UTC)
 * I'm going by MOS:DUPLINK which states that an article should be only linked once, with exceptions for repeating it in the lead and infobox. My interpretation is that a link should be in an article at most three times: once in the infobox, once in the lead and once in the body. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2017 Western Michigan Broncos football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Lester. 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) 09:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolution of WP: CFB discussion
The discussion on score format in schedule tables on WP: CFB has been up for for 13 days now. There hasn't been much input for the last eight days. Eight users are in favor of one side, five are in favor of the other. What more do you want to happen before you will accept the majority decision and stop undoing my edits? Kobra98 (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this were an AFD, it would be closed as "no consensus". I don't believe in this case that such a small majority of votes (with so few votes cast) qualify as a consensus. Personally, I think since there isn't a consensus, both styles should be allowed. I guess precedence goes to whatever style was first used in an article. Per MOS:VAR, "Edit-warring over styles is never acceptable. If the existing style of an article is problematic, discuss it at the article’s talkpage or if necessary at the MOS talkpage.. I don't believe either style is problematic in this case. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted comment. Decided to respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for Western Michigan's pages to be the only ones with a different format. Consistency is an important part of WP:CFB, and you're going directly against that for no reason whatsoever. By a vote of 9 to 5 it was voted to continue using the standard format that is present in the template for yearly team pages, and yet you still refuse to allow me to edit the WM pages. Why? Why is your personal preference more important than the majority opinion and the general consistency of Wikipedia? Kobra98 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there was no definitive consensus at the recent WP:CFB discussion, we have to revert back to the prevailing standard. I've restored all of Kobra98's edits on the Western Michigan articles going back to 2000.  I don't think there are any schedule tables for the earlier seasons. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. As I said in the discussion, if this were an AFD, no reasonable admin would have closed it with a decision It would have been no-consensus. And no one addressed my comment about the schedule table documentation which has always stated highest score goes first. I'll do more research on this. I believe highest score first was the original way it was presented. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on the non-consensus of the discussion, which means the status quo stands. You are correct about the schedule table documentation, but again, the overwhelming standard in practice is relevant team first. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bowl scores in headings
The standard in WP:CFB for the bowl score in the heading on yearly team season articles is to have relevant team's score first. If you want to change this you can start up a discussion. Until then, stop reverting my edits to fix the Western Michigan articles. Kobra98 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is a standard. The WikiProject College football/Yearly team pages format doesn't specify. All the conversation we had about "relevant team score first" pertained to schedule tables and not prose. This is more similar to prose, IMO, especially since a lot of the people for "relevant team score first" liked the ability to quickly scan down the column to see the team's points scored. This doesn't apply to an infobox. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean there isn't a standard? Just look at any CFB article; the vast majority use relevant team's score first. You're right, the discussion we had was only about schedule tables, so the format used in the header should stay as the standard, which is definitely relevant team's score first. Kobra98 (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The documentation for "how to write a college football season article" doesn't say to put "relevant score first" for bowl game results in the infobox. Therefore, there is no standard and nothing to enforce. It doesn't matter that the majority of articles do or do not. It's OK for articles to differ, especially if there has been no discussion on the style in question. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't matter that the majority of articles do or do not" For consistency's sake, yes it absolutely does. Why do you want these to differ? Why should your preference supersede the consistency of WP:CFB seasons articles? Kobra98 (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Michigan photos
Hi! Are you interested in taking more photos of Detroit?

If so, I found the Highland Park school district address changed to 12360 Woodward Avenue, Highland Park, MI 48203. Are you interested in photographing it? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know when I'll have the time, but I'll add it to the list! — X96lee15 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Inaugural Bahamas Bowl logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Inaugural Bahamas Bowl 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

DeVry vs Troy State
Are you the user that put the note on the page of the 1992 DeVry vs Troy State basketball match that prohibits changing the article to display the 253-141 score because of Verifiability? If so, why did you do this? The 253-141 has been proven in a publishment by a reliable source, and is thus verifiable.

QuarantineTarantula (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't put it up, but I cleaned it up to be less "threatening".
 * I disagree that SportsNation is a reliable source. In this case, the articles about the game at the time and the NCAA record book are the reliable sources. If an article now is written about the game or the NCAA revisits it, then we should change the Wikipedia article. Until then though, I think it follow WP policies to mention the discrepancy of the score in the body of the article. I'd also be OK with a note in the intro stating that the game score may also be 253–141, but the infobox and any references to the score in the article should use the 258 number (for now). — X96lee15 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)