User talk:Dirtlawyer1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to leave me a new message.

Greetings, all, and welcome to my talk page! If you leave a message here, I will respond here. If we started a conversation on another talk page, I have watch-listed that page and will continue to respond there. -- Dirtlawyer1


Gator baseball[edit]

Hey Dirt, I was wondering your opinion on this article: List of Florida Gators baseball seasons. Do you find it to be redundant, considering there is a full year-by-year records table at Florida Gators baseball#Year-by-year results? There only appears to be twelve such list articles on Wikipedia. The table used on the list article, however, is clearly better in my opinion since it includes more information and is consistent with other such tables on Wiki. What do you think about deleting the List article and using it to replace the table on the the main Baseball article? ~ Richmond96 TC 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Hey, R96. The list of seasons article is not redundant, and could be quite helpful if it were done properly. With almost 100 seasons to date (Gators baseball started in 1912, but missed several seasons because of the world wars), it's probably a good idea to have a daughter article for the seasons list. That being said, I'm not enamored of the formatting of either the list of seasons article, nor that of the season list in the main baseball team article. The key in presenting such lists is to incorporate core data in an easy-to-read "at-a-glance" format, while excluding too much detail. If you want an example of how not to do it, look at the Florida women's lacrosse article, where someone has tried to incorporate the team's entire post-season history into the individual lines of the seasons list.
Why don't you look at the various Gators seasons lists, give it some thought, and let's discuss the potential formats for these lists in a few days. Creating a uniform format for all of the Gators teams' season lists has been on my to-do list for a long while, and it's time we do something about it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Alright, will do. Would you say that the full list of seasons should not be included in both the Baseball page and a standalone article? ~ Richmond96 TC 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Once the stand-alone list article is reworked, we would link to the list in the main article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you think about this year-by-year records table? ~ Richmond96 TC 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Richmond96: Well, it's certainly a better choice than most of the do-it-yourself tables we've got for the Gators teams. But wouldn't it be an improvement if we included the season high-scorers? Think about it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Ha. Of course. Do you think I should go ahead and work on replacing the Florida table with this? ~ Richmond96 TC 02:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you try it out on the baseball, lacrosse, or women's tennis team (or one of the other really awful ones), and then let's talk. I'd like to be completely settled on the format before we change them all, and we probably need to consider all of the sport-specific variations before we do. Thanks for following up about this. It really needs to be done, and I'm embarrassed that I haven't dealt with it myself. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No shame in that, Dirt. I brought up the game stat leader issue three years ago and, well, here we are. P. S., do leave your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Tournament scores and seeding in infoboxes, if you feel so inclined. ~ Richmond96 TC 02:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

College Footbal National Championships article[edit]

Yes, I'm still actively editing it. Thanks for taking time to look at it! Dolenath (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dolenath: Thanks for checking in. I will ping you as I start to post my GA comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Notifying WikiProjects about TfDs[edit]

Perhaps, in place of or in addition to leaving a TfD notice, it'd be a good idea to encourage editors to place the article alert page of WikiProjects of their interest on their watchlist. Alakzi (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed, sir. In order for that to work, don't the templates have to have been tagged with the particular WikiProject template? I've encountered quite a few that have never been tagged . . . Some WPs are very diligent about tagging everything within their scope; others, well, not so much. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, they need to be tagged. The bot runs once-daily (I believe), so there might be up to a 24h delay—if a template's tagged immediately after it's been nominated. Alakzi (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
(watching) I never understood why a project would need to be notified. If the project members don't notice in their daily work that a template used in an article tehy watch is tagged for discussion, that template is obviously not of much interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, apart from basic courtesy in notifying a WikiProject about a pending TfD within its scope, very often WP members are the best source of information about a given infobox, navbox, etc., and its history, purposes, etc. Contrary to the paradigm where WP members are presumed to always be opposed to a proposed deletion or merge, very often the WikiProject will want to eliminate a given template because it is contrary to established formatting or other practices. One of the reasons templates are not tagged is because they were created by editors who are not WP members or even aware of the WP's existence. I can point to a dozen or more TfDs that are presently stalled for lack of knowledgeable participation (or any participation at all); sometimes the best way to break those logjams is to notify the applicable WikiProject(s) and solicit knowledgeable input. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Template changes[edit]

Before saving your changes like your recent one, you should preview them using the "Preview page with this template" box below the "Save page" button. Just enter in an article that uses the template you are editing to preview what it looks like. Assuming you are still getting the hang of things, you might even just want to tinker with things in a sandbox first and testBagumba (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup. You're right. I did hit the review button, and it looked fine on the template page. I got the short explanation on Alakzi's talk page, so I assume that it screwed up the template transclusions in actual use. How good are you with template coding? I want to tinker with the borders and some other formatting of the present sandbox template. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I can manage to hack my way around existing templates to add/change fields. I usually don't do much with color, shading, etc. FYI: if you made your own sandbox template, you would access it using syntax like {{User:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox}} —Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox college football player: HOF link[edit]

Hey Dirtlaywer1, are we not using the College Football Hall of Fame year and ID any longer? I noticed it wasn't in the infobox, but I've run across a member of the HoF. I was going to leave it if we were still using it; if not, I'll remove it. Corky | Chat? 01:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Corkythehornetfan: To be decided, but I would say we are likely to continue using the built-in link, Corky. The changes to the template this past weekend were a rush-job, so there may be some template functions that are currently not working or are working imperfectly. The CFBHOF link is one of the template functions to be resolved by an !vote of WP:CFB members and others on the template talk page. This will not be overlooked -- it's on my to-do list. Promise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. So should I leave there until a final decision is made? Corky | Chat? 01:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely leave all existing fields, including the CFBHOF link, in place for the time being, Corky. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks! Corky | Chat? 01:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

New schedule template[edit]

Been working on a little project. Since the discussion on WP:CBB is moving slowly, I decided to experiment with a completely new schedule table. Check it out if you get a chance and leave me your thoughts: User:Richmond96/sandbox. I thought I'd run it by you first, then I might present it to the rest. I literally threw every long name, arena name, rank and seed I could think of and I didn't get any line wrapping. The only problem is I have no idea how or if we can turn this into a template. ~ Richmond96 TC 03:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

R96, it's better than what Tony has been doing, but I still hate the inclusion of the stats leaders like crazy. Should include QB states and tackle leaders, etc., in the CFB schedules, too? I'm actually contemplating calling an RFC on the WP:CBB talk page with a yes/no !vote on every included datapoint for the CBB schedule tables. That's what we should have done two years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I know. I'm certainly not in favor of them either but it seemed impossible to eliminate them with us having one editor in such strong opposition. If you think we can do so by a simple vote, then I'm all for it. Even still, there are things I would like to fix such as moving the score right next to the opponent. Whatever you think is best to move forward with, let's do it. I really hope we can accomplish more than last time.~ Richmond96 TC 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
You're doing a lot more CBB work than I am right now, so do what you think is best for the next 7 to 10 days. All my wiki-time is getting sucked up dealing with the changes to Infobox college football player and the related article clean-up work. The CBB schedules have been fucked with so much the last couple of years that they're almost impossible to read for anyone but a hardcore stats freak . . . the game scores should go in one of two places, either (a) the column immediately to the right of the opponents column, or (b) in the far right column. Both positions facilitate easy recognition, but so much cruft has now been added to these tables, that the far right column is widely separated from the opponents in the second major column. The opponent and score are the two most important datapoints (the game date would be the third most important, with the game location a distant runner-up). The opponent and score need to be in close proximity, if not in immediately adjoining columns. This is the kind of basic principles of layout and design we learned in student journalism and layout and design workshops 35 years ago. You seem to get this stuff intuitively (or perhaps you've done some yearbook, newspaper or magazine work, too), but it's frustrating when a handful of editors think that more datapoints are always better, that line-wrapping is not a problem, and that a table that is 1.5 times the width of the typical laptop monitor and 3 times the width of the typical handheld screen is not a problem greatly reduces the value to the typical reader. Some folks just don't (or won't) grasp the basic concepts of "core data" and "at a glance" data presentation. And, of course, almost none of those "stats leader" columns are sourced, making them easy impossible to verify and easy prey for future vandalism. *sigh* Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
When you get time, please vote and tell me if/when you think it is okay for me to go ahead and implement the new schedule template. ~ Richmond96 TC 21:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
@Richmond96: Thanks for continuing to solicit my opinion on this topic. Please feel free to act on the evolving consensus at the WP:CBB talk page. Among the handful of editors expressing an opinion, I seem to be the only one adamantly opposed to including the game stats leaders in the revised season schedule tables. Three years ago, I know that other long-time CBB editors were opposed to these additions; for whatever reasons, while remaining active they have chosen not to participate in these discussions. I guess we will see shortly whether other CBB editors who notice the template changes will object, or whether they will be accepted without further discussion. Thank you for handling this discussion in an open, direct and forthright manner -- it's how all discussions should be done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Don't really notice anything different with the college football infobox other than the top parameters don't display beside each other anymore and the stats link is bigger. Also for the NFL infobox, do you know why the debut team is now bolded with a colon, the colors changed (I think they alternated before) and the stats aren't really just evenly straight down anymore. Doesn't really matter, just wondering. Also, why is there a line separating any stats that aren't the nfl link now (see Eddie Johnson (linebacker)). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @WikiOriginal-9: Re Infobox college football player: One of the things I have discovered is that a large percentage of the teams listed under the "career history" are improperly linked to the parent colleges or universities (e.g., "University of Florida (1999–2002"), instead of properly pipe-linked to the specific college football team article (e.g., "Florida (1999–2002)"). I assume you know the proper pipe-linking format: "[[Florida Gators football|Florida]] (1999–2002)". There are still several hundred that are improperly listed as such; I could really use your help cleaning these up. Are you up for it? There will be a lot more clean-up when the new Template:Infobox college football player is finalized, but we're not there yet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Re Infobox NFL player, there have been some temporary changes made to facilitate new standard coding for infobox parameter labels. No final decisions have been made regarding the graphics, colors, and layout and design for Infobox NFL player, and I envision that we will go through a similar discussion process for that template as we have for Infobox college football player. I have already taken steps to organize that discussion, but I've been largely consumed with issues related to the CFB player infobox. I'd like to finish the CFB infobox discussion first, because I think that will simplify the NFL infobox discussion in the near future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The new debut bolding, colons and stats are fine. The line is the only thing that might need changed. Also, since there is only one color now, the font colors might have to be changed. I am not sure that Cam Newton's infobox should just have black lines for the Panthers. Maybe it should though lol. Also, for the college football team linking, you probably know but just in case, it isn't a result of the changes. I just checked and Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota have both been saying "University". I have seen people making new articles and linking it to "Blank University", so I don't know if people actually think it's wrong or whatever for college football articles. I'll change ones I come across. College basketball uses the "team" linking too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In an idiot-proof world, an editor would need only add the college name, then the template would figure out the right team article. I could have swore I've seen some template that does that before, but it was probably sport specific.—Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Bagumba, the "pastteams" parameter in Infobox college football player is not presently a dynamic parameter, but is coded as a "plainlist" parameter that permits the entry of two or three college teams (for transfers) in chronological sequence followed by unlinked year tenures following each pipe-linked team. If someone can create a dynamic parameter that does not complicate the template beyond the easy use of a typical editor, I would be in favor of that, but ease of use must be the primary consideration. That's one of the reasons we deprecated the "currentposition" dynamic parameter in Infobox NFL player: its use with parenthetically disambiguated position articles became too error-prone for the typical editor and created more maintenance problems than it solved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree; too much "automagic" can be harmful. I quite like the current arrangement. It saves editors from having to use {{Plainlist}}, so it's exactly like adding a list in prose. Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
WO-9, re Infobox college football player, yes, many of the college team links have been erroneously entered with links to the universities, not the teams. If you see any editors creating new articles with such links, let me know, and I will gently read them the riot act. There are all sorts of issues out there, including quite a few non-notable subjects that need to be sent to AfD. Keep a list of those issues, but let's ignore them for the time being, and focus on fixing the team links. My ultimate focus will be on improving high-priority articles for consensus All-Americans and major award winners, but, well . . . one problem at a time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Herb Covington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dixie Classic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

College football player infobox[edit]

It's been a three months since this discussion started User talk:Dirtlawyer1/sandbox. I never saw any effort at closing the discussion. Isn't it time to finalize which parameters do and do not have a consensus? Cbl62 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cbl62: Yes, sir. Cbl, my best-laid plans of an orderly process were nixed when a well-known template editor and regular TfD participant jumped in 11 days ago and started making radical changes to the colors, graphics, and layout and design of the template. If I had not screamed "bloody murder" like an angry banshee, we would now have something that looks like Infobox person rather than the pretty damn sharp infobox that's now shaping up. Give me another week or so to satisfy the several non-CFB folks who have been trying to take this in another Plain Jane direction, and I plan to hold the promised mini-RfC on the template talk page to resolve all outstanding issues regarding parameters and links to be added and deleted. I'll drop by your talk page to discuss further and get your reaction. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Should be thankful that you're not David Beckham who actually infobox person now lol. All the same info is there, the football infobox just got embedded. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Navbox colors[edit]

Let's push aside the infobox discussion for now. I know you've spent a lot of time thinking through color schemes. For navboxes, the main topic is typically liked in the title of the navbox, which has the same issue with invisible links due to the existing color schemes. Did you have ideas already for handling that?—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm well aware of the hidden link(s) in the coach and championship navboxes, and I was aware of it five years ago -- and I pointed it out at the time as a "hidden link" formatting problem. At the time, everyone was so pleased with themselves to settle on a uniform color, graphics and formatting scheme that we decided to ignore the "hidden link" issue. The core problem is that the colored background serves to hide the usual electric blue hyperlink text in combination with the hard-coded text color (most often white). There really is no easy solution for the hidden links in the navbox titles -- short of removing the hidden links in the titles, that is.
I've been thinking about it for five years, and I've never hit upon an easy solution. Whether we keep the hidden link in the navbox titles or not, however, we should check to ensure there is a visually obvious link to the same destination article somewhere inside the body of the navbox -- which is, after all, the whole point of a navbox: to facilitate navigation reader by providing article links to related content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
One option is to use a white background with colored borders. Works, but not as visually pleasing. If the color scheme is not changed, similar text to a navbox's current title would need to be repeated in the box, with a visible link. Works, but repetitive. Then there stays quo with hidden links. Are there other options?—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I got nothing beyond making sure the inside contents of the box include an obvious hyperlink to the same destination article. Putting a smaller background box of a different color around the actual hyperlinks in exterior navbox title would be atrociously ugly. To comply with WP:COLOR, you have to remove the link or do something ugly with exterior design, and that's the 2010 status quo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
... Stripes? Alakzi (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
LOL @Alakzi: You are a very bad man. Seriously, though, take a look at Template:Florida Gators football navbox, and then follow the category trees -- there are hundreds of them for teams, team rosters for championship seasons, head coach successions, etc. They all suffer from the hidden link problem per WP:COLOR for the link buried in the exterior navbox title. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is a perennial issue with navboxes. Personally, I believe that navbox colouring is excessive, but there's probably no turning the tide now. Perhaps a subtle double-stripe on the one side wouldn't be so bad. Alakzi (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Or . . . we could take the new college varsity stripe pattern for each school and repeat it diagonally across the exterior of the navbox like a school necktie. I bet you could code that, right?  ; ) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know; it looks a bit silly. Alakzi (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup. You can safely whack that one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Slightly different, but related topic: did you see the full mock-up of Infobox college football player with the full graphics package? Apart from the current team name and jersey no. in the first section header, do you approve? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It could be a visual phenomena due to the stripes, but it looks like the text got shrunk by a pixel or two. If so, can the text size be compensated?—Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It may or may not be an optical illusion due to the surrounding stripes. Obviously everything can be coded if you know how to do it, but I don't have a clue. I would think the first step would be to have Alakzi hard-code the text size for the section headers (currently 95% of main body text), and see if that makes a visually discernible difference relative to the perceived size of the rest of the infobox text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I've measured it several different ways, at several different screen enlargement sizes: it's an illusion; text size in the section headers have not changed as a result of the new graphics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice this comment earlier; yes, the text size is unchanged. Alakzi (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

GA review?[edit]

Hi -- I noticed you've taken a while to get started on the GA review; anything I can do to help? I feel guilty for having nudged you to do this if you don't actually have time, so I'd be happy to take it over if you can't get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the gentle nudge, Mike. I've been consumed with a "wiki-controversy" involving one of my pet projects for the last 10-12 days, but that's coming to an end shortly, I think. I have some preliminary comments I can post for the GA nominator later tonight, and then probably complete the review in the next 48 hours (I've got review notes from two weekends ago). I'll ping you to check my review comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Hi Dirtlawyer1, can I interest you in a peer review of the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship? Besides being the first edition of the Wimbledon Championships it was also the first official tennis tournament and as such has historical significance. It is my first peer review request and so far it has not received any review comments. The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I am the major contributor, although it was not created by me. Hopefully it can be turned into an FA, which would make it the very first FA article of the WikiProject Tennis. If you have an interest and some time (and want to clear your conscience after the 2013 Maria Sharapova Tennis Season Massacre !) I would welcome your comments.--Wolbo (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Wolbo: I'm flattered that you would ask me -- thank you for trusting me with your baby. I would like to help. How quickly would you need Peer Review feedback? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help out. I try to avoid the treacherous waters of WP:OWN but you are right, it does feel a bit like WP:MYBABY (guess that would make it an adopted baby since I didn't create it, but still). It is, by some distance, the article which I have put the most effort in and the first one where I have just about reached a point of not being able to find any more relevant content in reliable sources. It has been a lot of fun to work on and put my teeth in, almost a shame it is nearing the finishing line. There is no real rush to get it reviewed so whenever you have some time in the next week or so would be fine. Next week one or two other editors will probably have a look as well. I did read that PR requests get archived after two weeks so I will leave a note that review is on the way. Thanks again and look forward to your feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dirtlawyer1, the review is now on its way, lot of good comments so far. If you still want to join the upcoming week would be a good time for feedback.--Wolbo (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:CFB player infobox[edit]

I don't believe I have much to add with that discussion, but I like the stripes. If it needs a tally of approval, please let me know and, I'll vote that I like the changes as of now. I do have a question though. Due to the fact I have somewhat limited experience with bio-infoboxes, I am wondering why coach and player infoboxes are so drastically different than say, CFB to NFL? I suppose it may have something to do with people like Phog Allen who coached multiple sports and it would be unfair to paint him in just one box (pardon the pun). However, I wonder why coach navboxes wouldn't include certain aspects like player number and other things of that sort?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I have no problem with it either. Looks quite sharp. I'm afraid that someone may bring up accessibility issues at some point, though. Connormah (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Connormah: There was a pretty thorough vetting of accessibility issues, including text/background contrast for the section headers. Can you be more specific? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't seen that. In that case, I see no real pressing problems. Happy to see that we've worked something out for CFB players. Connormah (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Giant Party Infobox[edit]

I thought you would appreciate this. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes. Why, who knew that one viaduct/bridge could have so many serial numbers? Quite sure we didn't omit any core information from that one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

University Infoboxes[edit]

Hey DL, I was wondering what your opinion was of this edit? [1] I think this certainly needs discussed because I think this could potentially (rightfully or wrongfully) impact all university infoboxes.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Bluejay, Roachetta may be right -- every university has its own rules for the use of the university's seal, logo and/or word marks, as well as those for their athletic program. (I don't pretend to know how West Texas A&M wants its seal used.) Most universities post such rules somewhere on their websites, often together with its official hex and Pantone colors. Since the seal is usually a non-free image -- subject to copyright and/or trademark, the university has a large measure of control over how others use it. Word marks are usually not subject to copyright or trademark protections -- logos may or may not depending on the originality and creative content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
That sounds very fair to me. I agree that they don't have to let their intellectual property to be used. I was just wondering because it is so widespread that we might potentially see a mass removal of such logos, in which case I would be welcome to help. (but only if its necessary). Thanks.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
My alma mater, the University of Florida, has a similar restriction on the use of its seal, but not an outright prohibition on its use. We rationalized the seal's use on the main University of Florida article, but we use the university's word mark for all of the articles about the university's constituent colleges like the law school, med school, etc. Seemed like a reasonably limited one-time use of the seal -- it is an article about the University of Florida, after all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated two American football infoboxes for deletion[edit]

Hi Dirtlawyer1. This is probably right up your street. Alakzi (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: I'll take a look -- if memory serves me right, the Legends league is the former Lingerie Football League. Now, there's some weirdness. LOL Do we have one-to-one correspondence for existing parameters? No parameters of any significance that are league-specific? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Legends league is the former Lingerie Football League. Yeah, I saw that; I had to do a double take. There's the |league= and the |league_champ_type= (|league_champ='s label) which are pre-filled. Otherwise, there's a one-to-one correspondence. Alakzi (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's any easy support. If I had my way, all of the LFL team articles would be merged into the parent league article and deleted at AfD -- a bunch of them for the former LFL Australian division were deleted last year. I have no idea what the attraction for Aussies might be -- they can go to any beach in the country and see more better looking women wearing fewer clothes. The American LFL teams are barely notable, if notable at all, per GNG. Wikipedia attracts a lot of crap that we can never get rid of. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It probably applies to sports in general. I've seen articles about some pretty obscure roller hockey teams in Italy. P.S. I closed a rather controversial TfD earlier - let's see if it sticks. Alakzi (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the underlying problem is the desire to create something on Wikipedia -- article, list, navbox -- but not really understanding the concept of notability, or more broadly, what constitutes "encyclopedic" content worthy of expending time and effort. Tough to explain to someone who's convinced we should have detailed articles about LFL teams. Sports generate a lot of crap, but there are other offenders, too, with no grasp of the Big Picture. Spend some time perusing our video game Good Articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in[edit]

Hello Dirtlawyer1,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: I used Newspapers.com regularly -- I have taken the survey as requested and provided feedback. I have also been recently approved for HighBeam access, but have not yet used it. With whom do I follow up regarding HighBeam? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response! There is a similar check-in happening for HighBeam, but since your access is recent, I'm not sure if you're on the distribution list for that one. In any case, the Wikipedia Library coordinator for HighBeam is @Nikkimaria: so you can follow up with her. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Our HighBeam survey was distributed to those who got access 6 to 12 months ago (roughly), so you weren't on that list - if you do have questions or concerns now though, I'd be happy to work with you on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Ping}Nikkimaria}} I was approved for a HighBeam account 2 or 3 month ago, but I've never gotten access. What do I need to do to complete the process? I have several academic bios I would like to upgrade to GAs this summer, and the HB account access would be helpful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...are you certain it was HighBeam you were approved for 2 or 3 months ago? I have a record of you applying in 2012, but I see no edits by you to WP:HighBeam within the past year, and you're not in the archive after 2012 either. You certainly qualify, so if you wanted to apply now I can approve you right away. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ferguson number[edit]

Hey, I saw you had commented on MisterCake's talk page about Fergie Ferguson's number. Have you seen this article? There is a pic at the top of Ferguson which shows the number 8 on his shirt. Not sure if that is the correct number or if you've seen it before, but thought I'd mention it to you. It also says he played from 1939 to 1941, which I saw you had a ? after the 4. I believe this is Florida's athletic website. Corky | Chat? 01:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Corky. That does appear to be an "8" when enlarged! And the caption says that it's a game photo. Works for me. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Never seen those jerseys before. See here. Cake (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Could those have been practice jerseys? Reminds me of this in the corner. Cake (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Might have been, but for the caption indicating that it was a game photo. I had old-fashioned heather grey practice warm-up sweats imprinted like that (the basketball coach's jersey) when I was in high school, and the opposing players are wearing a distinctly different uniform. They were standard issue in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and 70s. Still see them around at high school and college practices today. They're warm, cheap, and comfortable when they're mostly cotton. In fact, I'm lounging in a UVa sweatshirt now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)