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

To my talk archives

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)
The peer review has been closed but if you're still interested you're welcome to contribute at the WP:FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mike Heath (swimmer)[edit]

The article Mike Heath (swimmer) you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Mike Heath (swimmer) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cloudz679 -- Cloudz679 (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Louisiana State University rugby[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Louisiana State University rugby. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in a comment I just left at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 May 6. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mike White[edit]

Hey Dirt, very quick question about the new hire. Mike White or Michael White? GatorZone is using Michael but the press seems to be using Mike. Cheers to a new era. ~ Richmond96 TC 00:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, that's a surprise. I just did a Google News search of "Michael White" & Louisiana Tech vs "Mike White" & Louisiana Tech; Mike wins 5100 vs. 3300 for Michael. WP:COMMONNAME, could go either way based on Tech and Florida using Michael in their coach profiles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. I think it should be consistent, whichever we choose. Right now the basketball article uses Michael but the '15 season article uses Mike. I'd go with Mike personally but I don't feel that strongly either way. ~ Richmond96 TC 01:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Then go with Mike, Mr. Trendsetter. I'm good with it either way, and the current Google count is close enough that no one can really question it. Fingers crossed that Foley picked a good one. He's an SEC guy, he's apparently got a good reputation as a ball coach and recruiter, but he's light on NCAA experience. I remember how young Billy was when he was hired, but he had tournament experience and he was a Pitino protege. That said, no matter who you pick, there's a certain element of luck to it, and White now needs to focus on salvaging the 2015 recruiting class. We shall see. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your question at RFA[edit]

At [1], an administrator declined to be recalled. (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for indulging my curiosity. The linked "recall" certainly was a cock-up. That about nine months before I became a registered Wikipedia editor, and I only recognize about 15 to 20 of the 140+ discussion participants as still being active editors in 2015. It certainly is cautionary tale for any RfA candidate who states he or she is "open to recall," giving proper thought how a recall should be structured. Clearly that admin did not understand the ambiguities in the terms of her own recall proposal. That said, I have no idea whether she was deserving of recall or not; she certainly seems to have pissed off a large number of her fellow editors.
BTW, do I know you? It seems odd that an IP user would appear out of the blue to answer my obscure question. If so, please ping me from your user talk page so I know who you are. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Nevin[edit]

Yes check.svg Done. GiantSnowman 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Service with a smile. Can't get any better than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, not renowned for my pace unfortunately - and I've not played for a few years following a series of serious injuries - now I just watch and dream... GiantSnowman 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, there's always that barrister/solicitor gig, if you're still so inclined. It's not like England has enough lawyers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Remember this? Just wondering if you'd still be interested. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Dummy Taylor[edit]

Would you be so kind as to see if you can add anything to the article of Earle "Dummy" Taylor? He may deserve the title of first offensive Gator-football great. To understand the history behind "master of the hidden-ball trick" see 1903 Carlisle Indians football team and John Heisman or 1895 Auburn Tigers football team. Cake (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, though I did not do those ancestry edits on that page. Cake (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Cake, my question is completely unrelated to Dummy. I need exact dates of death for these two Olympic swimmers: Irene Pirie and Frederick Milton. He purportedly died in 1991, she in 1998, both in Britain/England. Irene was born Canadian, and married Freddy, a Brit, apparently some time in 1935. Her middle name was Catherine; his was George, perhaps with a second middle name of Matt or Matthew. She may be listed under her maiden name, her husband's surname, or a hyphenated compound name. Can you check them out for me? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure. In Canada and England makes it harder. I will have to poke at it over the course of days and see if I find a date. Meanwhile I see this. Cake (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice. Since they're both deceased, we may be able to use the photo on a "fair use" basis. I'll check with my Wikipedia fair use expert, User:Hammersoft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Standard dead person exception applies. Fair use away, so long as a reasonable effort has been made to find free license media. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick fair use opinion, Hammer. Having just seen the linked photo in the last 24 hours, I think its potential use is attractive because it includes the husband and wife, in period swimming kit, in a photo contemporary with their Olympic/Empire Games swimming careers. I don't know if a free-use alternative exists, but it would certainly be worth going through the exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot find anything better than your dates. Frederick George Matthew Milton died August of 1991 in Cirencester. He was baptised November 28, 1906 in the London Borough of Camden. Cake (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

2016 USC Trojans football team[edit]

Hello , sorry I did not know that we could not create a page as far in advance , I could do it again for next year at the end of the season 2015. You can be deleted if necessary. :) sorry.


  • @RCFrance: Not a problem, RCF. You may recreate the 2016 page any time after the 2015 season is over. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer; I went to the AfD only because I was watching the next thread up here. I was kinda surprised that an article about a football team for next year was at deletion, so I looked at it. Sorry I gave a contrary view to your nomination. It'll be deleted anyway, but what I said bears thinking about. There are plenty of news stories about upcoming recruiting classes for a number of high profile programs around the country. Not writing about it here, when it is reality and verifiable, because of a bureaucratic move seems counter intuitive to our purpose here. A person wanting more information about that team would reasonably expect to find some information about the recruiting class here, distilled from secondary sources. But to have nothing? If we can verify (and we can), I see no problem with having an article about the team, just not all of the information we normally have. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, Hammer, and certainly no need to apologize. You raise some interesting and valid points. As always, I appreciate your considered opinions, and frankly, our sports AfD discussions would greatly benefit from more outside input -- especially from editors who know the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and understand their relationship and interaction with the specific notability guidelines for athletes per WP:NSPORTS and for sports teams per WP:ORG. I will respond to your AfD comments later this evening, but your future input in sports AfDs is welcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wither thou goest...on second thought, I think I'll pass :) Seriously though, if there's substantial, verifiable news sources discussing that team, there's really no reason to not have an article about it. Bureaucracy should not get in the way of providing verifiable information, and that is what is happening with this 2016 Trojans page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC) (p.s. ever wonder why the popular brand of condoms "Trojan" has its name when the original Trojan Horse burst open and let lots of guys out? Ummm...)
  • I despair of Wikipedia for the bureaucratic mind set displayed at the AfD. It's depressing, to say the least. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

71 Marshall Draft[edit]

I have created a Rough draft of the 1971 Marshall football team. You can view it here [2]. Feel free to add or change as many things as you would like. Thanks-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Vratislav Lokvenc[edit]

Yep, more than happy to help if/when you need it. GiantSnowman 09:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks, GS. I will ping you later this weekend with a GA review link, after I've made my initial GA review comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Michael Frazier II[edit]

This Gator has a god-awful stub out there heading into the NBA draft. It could use a little TLC. Rikster2 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment pertaining to new school articles and categories[edit]

I began an important issue that will affect the college football, basketball, and baseball projects. You are a regular editor within any or all of these WikiProjects and your input is requested. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#University of Texas Rio Grande Valley athletics. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Aircraft Navboxes[edit]

I wanted to follow up on the incomplete discussion we had here and hopefully come to some conclusion. I thought your suggestion of a moratorium on nominating navboxes for deletion for some period of time to get the existing ones up to standard was a good idea. I did have some questions for you in that discussion, but it was closed (as "keep") before you had a chance to respond, so I thought I would bring the discussion back up here. You had suggested that I start a discussion at WikiProject Aircraft and come up with an agreement to complete a sufficient number of navbox redlinks with in some agreed upon timeframe without dealing with further TfDs. I am happy to do that if it will avoid more TfDs, but need some more information before I can take this to the Project members, however. One thing I need to present them with is the scope of the work to be done, in other words how many articles need to be written. To figure that out we do have a list of the navboxes (currently about 763), but I need to be able to present to what standard they need to be brought up to. You suggested that any given navbox should have a majority of bluelinks. On the other hand the editor who has been nominating all our navboxes for deletion indicated that he has no problem with redlinks, but wants to see at least three bluelinks in the main body of the box (ie not the manufacturer nor the general category of aircraft) and that these can be made up of aircraft types, people, etc as long as there are at least three. His reasoning is that WP:NAVBOX says navboxes are to "facilitate navigation between ... articles" and fewer than three doesn't really do that. I need to reconcile your suggested standard with his, so I can figure out how many boxes need articles written for and then take that to the Project members. The other editor has said that he is willing to not nominate any more boxes until Christmas, but I have no idea if that is sufficient time until I have a standard and then can figure out how much work is involved. As I also asked you in the TfD discussion (but you didn't have time to respond), if we decide that the issue is the existence of redlinks in the navboxes then how about just removing them until articles can be written? I will also be asked by Project members, whatever standard is decided upon, which policy supports that. No one is going to be happy having to take on some immediate work just to suit one editor or another's opinions, obviously as someone else will just come along and nominate navboxes for deletion based on a different personal opinion. As I noted in the TfD, we long ago wrote all the easy to find subjects and are now wading our way through very old and obscure paper refs, often buried in the bowels of the reference section of public libraries, so creating quick stubs is not an option in many cases these days, given the degree of completion of the aircraft type articles. I should also mention that even though there are a lot of members listed in WikiProject Aircraft, there are only three of us regularly writing aircraft articles these days. Sadly many of our most prolific article creators got tired of issues like these acrimonious and unnecessary TfDs and no longer participate. All of that said, any thoughts or guidance you can give would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ahunt: AH, please accept my apologies for not responding while the TfD discussion was still pending, and thank you for following up. I recognized that the TfD was going to close as a "keep" because several additional articles had been created and the navbox was largely red-link-free. Frankly, I did not want to say or do anything that was simply going to prolong a contentious discussion whose outcome was already obvious to anyone paying attention.
By coincidence, last night I was removing from my watch list 4 and 5-year-old TfDs that involved navboxes for the college sports WikiProjects, and I started reading though the discussions. The circumstances and discussion points were/are remarkably similar to those of the aircraft navboxes. The college sports projects had recently removed all head coach succession boxes from the college sports articles and replaced them with navboxes that included the entire coaching succession for each college football or college men's basketball team (see, e.g., Template:Florida Gators football coach navbox). Some regular TfD participants initially objected to the unlinked year-spans; we successfully argued that while the principal purpose of navboxes remained reader navigation, navboxes could legitimately serve secondary purposes, including serving as a succession of linked coaches, officeholders, etc.). This worked pretty well for Division I college football and Division I men's college basketball, where most of the coaches easily satisfied the GNG notability standard and most of whom already had existing Wikipedia bio articles. Problems and recurring TfD conflicts later arose when overly enthusiastic template creators started creating new navbox templates for all Division I sports coaches (are all college baseball coaches really notable?), and then started creating navboxes for Division II and III coaches, too. As a result, college sports editors got an education in WP:NAVBOX, TfD procedures and precedents, and quite a few navboxes in minor sports and lower division programs got deleted because they were filled with red links. What eventually happened was that the smart sports editors learned to create stub articles before they created navboxes, as they should have done from the git-go. After that, most of the sports navbox TfDs stopped, and the college sports projects are now more likely to propose/support navbox TfDs because some template editors continue to push the margins by creating crufty navboxes for minor sports awards, etc.
From my perspective, there are two different, but related problems your WikiProject needs to address: (1) minimum number of working links for existing stand-alone articles; and (2) the minimum proportion/percentage of listed content for which there are working blue links for existing stand-alone articles. My personal rules of thumb -- which are generally supported by a range of TfD precedents --- would be a minimum of three working links to existing stand-alone articles (not counting the parent article or list); and for navboxes with more than three working links, half or more of the links should be working blue links to existing stand-alone articles (and not merely redirects).
Anyhow, AH, those are my opinions in point. As an alternative to more over-heated and unproductive TfD discussions, I would gladly support a moratorium on aircraft manufacturer navboxes if WP:Aircraft will commit to aggressively creating sourced start-quality articles to alleviate the navbox red link problem between now and the end of the year. Based on his TfD discussion comments, I think even The Banner is willing to agree to that, and I would vote to "keep, with caveat" any new TfD-nominated aircraft navboxes between now and December 31, 2015. I would also use whatever moral suasion I have with other editors and TfD participants to get them to back off and defer any more TfDs on that basis. Is that something you can sell? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response here. You have at least given me a single standard to take to the list of nav boxes so I can at least figure out now how much work is involved in creating the missing articles and then take that to the project editors so they can respond. It will take me a few days to collect that data and present it there, but I'll drop you a note here when I do so, in case you would like to participate in the discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay I have done some research on the scope of the job and started the discussion here. Please do let me know if I got any of the details wrong and please feel free to participate in the debate if you would like to do so. - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Olympic NCAA sports[edit]

I was wondering what wikiproject sports such as wrestling, gymnastics, softball, swimming, or track fall under. Just a quick look at some of the University of Oklahoma coaches I can see that some standardization with other sports may be needed. Is there a wikiproject for college sports in general, or could a WP:NCAA be something that could be started, or with WP:CFB WP:college basketball already being mainstream is this possibility too late for its time.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @UCO2009bluejay: As you know, there are no specific WikiProjects for "minor" college sports. The "big three" -- WikiProject College football, WikiProject College basketball, WikiProject College baseball -- have assumed a sort of Big Brother relationship to coordinate issues of common concern like Infobox college coach, coaching succession navboxes, etc. Unfortunately, for lack of interested editors, there has been very little coordinated emphasis on improving college sports articles other than football, men's basketball and baseball. There are sport-specifc WikiProjects for golf, gymnastics, hockey, lacrosse, soccer/association football, softball, swimming, track & field/athletics, volleyball, etc., but, to the extent those WPs are really even active, their emphasis tends to be on the international and professional aspects of those sports; very few of these WPs take an active interest in American NCAA and Canadian CIS competition. What work has been done in these other college sports has been done by a few editors working in isolation, either by someone with an interest in the specific college sport, or in the teams of a specific university. There just hasn't been enough interested editors to build out the other college sports in the same way that college football and men's basketball have been built out (the college baseball are trying). Too often what we get are stubs that were created by someone with a passing interest, or by someone who just likes to create new stubs, and the articles linger in limbo, never finished, mostly incomplete, with lots of out-of-date information, too much trivia, and just plain bad writing. To my way of thinking, in many cases these perma-stub team articles are worse than no article at all, and they often become magnets for vandalism and weird fancruft when they're not actively maintained.
Rather than create a completely new "WP:NCAA", I think there is room for a "little brother" subproject or subcommittee of WikiProject College football, WikiProject College basketball, and WikiProject College baseball, in which all members of those WPs would be automatically considered members of the subproject. We could use the subproject to memorialize common standards for formatting, college coach and athlete notability, graphics, categorization, etc., but with the understanding that it was not an "independent" WikiProject. Frankly, we don't have enough bodies. That said, a subproject/NCAA committee would also be some place that editors of college golf, gymnastics, hockey, lacrosse, soccer/association football, softball, swimming, track & field/athletics, volleyball, etc.. could bring their issues, and could not only coordinate with the wider college sports community, but could also coordinate with the primary Wikiprojects for each of those sports. In that way, "WP:NCAA" would by everyone's little brother, and everyone would have some stake in it. If we were feeling really ambitious, we could even make some attempt to coordinate with whoever is working on CIS sports articles north of the border, too.
Anyway, I'm already in the beginning stages of an effort to create a single NCAA sports team infobox for all NCAA sports teams, with common colors and graphics, but also with appropriate sport-specific options. That will be another step in the direction of having a common set of colors, graphics, layout and design for all NCAA sports articles. After that, we just need some decent writers to build them out so they're not the horribly embarrassing wrecks most of them currently are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That last paragraph is specifically why I asked you directly and not necessarily a question on WP:CFB. I just saw some OU coach articles that as you said, appeared to me pretty crufty, categories, and infoboxes were a mess. Thanks–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the aforementioned WikiProject College football, WikiProject College Basketball, and WikiProject College baseball, there are also the College softball and College ice hockey task forces of their respective projects. Beyond that, all that exists are the general projects (i.e. WikiProject Tennis, WikiProject Swimming, WikiProject Football, WikiProject Volleyball, etc.) As DL said, those projects are primarily interested in the professional/Olympic aspects of their respective sports, and most people there really aren't interested in NCAA athletics at all. It's a separate issue whether or not all of the teams in these sports are actually notable. For me, personally, I tend to think that any NCAA D-I team playing one of the so-called US "big 4" sports (and their relative female equivalent) is going to be notable (i.e. baseball/softball, men's/women's basketball, men's/women's ice hockey, football). There are probably others sports that receive enough coverage to justify stand-alone articles, too (soccer, volleyball, wrestling, lacrosse, etc.). But, the further down the line you go, the more fuzzy it starts becoming (do we really need stand-alone articles for bowling teams, field hockey teams, rowing teams, etc.). Just for argument's sake, I have yet to see any third-party coverage of an NCAA cross country team, even at the D-I level. Heck, those types of teams barely get any coverage in student media, either. I'm not really sure what the answer is, and if someone wanted to write an article about one of these "minor" teams, I would probably be more on the "Whatever, just let them go ahead and do whatever they want" bandwagon. However, we all know that the deletionist sharks are always circling, looking for low-hanging fruit to tee off on. No need to toss them any more live bait then absolutely necessary, if we can help it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Division I sports: Scope of the problem[edit]

@UCO2009bluejay and Ejgreen77: Here are some stats for you:

NCAA Division I Men's Sports, 2013–14

Sport Teams Athletes Articles
Baseball 297 10,338 303 [3]
Basketball 346 5,445 511 [4]
Cross Country 313 4,779 8 [5]
Fencing* 20 380 0
FBS 123 14,739 127 [6]
FCS 126 12,948 125 [7]
Golf 297 2,951 10 [8]
Gymnastics 16 348 4 [9]
Ice Hockey 59 1,630 64 [10]
Lacrosse 67 3,070 43 [11]
Rifle* 18 129 0
Skiing* 11 162 2 [12]
Soccer 201 5,731 118 [13]
Swimming/Diving 135 3,864 14 [14]
Tennis 261 2,677 10 [15]
Track, Indoor 260 10,270 21 [16]
Track, Outdoor 281 11,240 21 [17]
Volleyball 23 450 7 [18]
Water Polo 22 586 0
Wrestling 77 2,544 47 [19]

NCAA Division I Women's Sports, 2013–14

Sport Teams Athletes Articles
Basketball 344 4,900 225 [20]
Bowling 33 276 0
Cross Country 342 6,039 8 [21]
Fencing* 24 402 0
Field Hockey 79 1,781 11 [22]
Golf 260 2,198 10 [23]
Gymnastics 62 1,118 7 [24]
Ice Hockey 34 799 36 [25]
Lacrosse 103 3,018 9 [26]
Rifle* 24 151 0
Rowing 88 5,856 1 [27]
Skiing* 12 180 2 [28]
Soccer 325 8,843 16 [29]
Softball 290 5,942 115 [30]
Swimming 196 5,464 14 [31]
Tennis 319 2,953 5 [32]
Track, Indoor 317 12,705 8 [33]
Track, Outdoor 327 12,994 8 [34]
Volleyball 329 5,122 27 [35]
Water Polo 33 716 0
Total 3,541 81,457

These numbers do not include so-called "Emerging Sports," in which the NCAA does not yet sponsor championships: equestrian (19); rugby (3); sand volleyball (38); squash (11); synchronized swimming (2).

Compare the numbers in the first column (number of teams in 2013–14) with the numbers in the third column (Wikipedia articles on topic). As you can see, other than baseball, men's basketball, football, and men's and women's hockey, our coverage of existing Division I teams is nowhere close to 100 percent. Women's basketball, men's soccer, and men's lacrosse look to fall somewhere in the 50 to 60 percent coverage range. For all other sports, coverage is a relatively small fraction of the total teams, and even most of the articles that do exist are an amateur-ish brew of out-of-date information, fancruft trivia and vandalism, even for some of the most storied championship teams in those sports. So, yeah, I'm against the across-the-board creation of stand-alone stub articles for teams in the so-called minor/Olympic sports. As a rational alternative to en masse stub creation, I would suggest the following:

1. Selective creation and improvement of the stand-alone articles for the five to ten most historically significant teams in each sport: e.g., Arkansas men's cross country, Michigan Wolverines men's swimming, North Carolina Tar Heels women's soccer, Northwestern Wildcats women's lacrosse, Stanford Cardinal women's tennis, USC Trojan's mens track & field, Villanova women's cross country, etc. Start with the programs that have one or more NCAA national team championships in their sport. Start with the NCAA championship teams listed in the articles linked in Template:National Collegiate Athletic Association.

2. For all other Division I teams that have never won a national championships or been historical contenders, we should have a concerted effort to clean up the all-sports program articles, e.g., the Florida Gators or Stanford Cardinal. Rather than trying to create stand-alone stubs for every Division I team, how about we make a concerted effort to add three to four well-written paragraphs summarizing the history of each of the "minor" sports teams to the all-sports program articles? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Even some of those numbers are probably a bit optimistic, too. For example, baseball lists 297 teams and 303 "articles," yet, if you go to their project page, you can see that the coverage is nowhere near that. The category structure exists, but the actual articles don't. In general, though, I think that for the very, very minor sports, focusing on teams that have actually won national championships is probably a good idea, at least for a start. Like the old saying goes, How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. . . Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ejgreen77: Yes, I noticed that the categories for some of the minor sports often hold player or other subcategories, but not an actual stand-alone team article, and I tried to adjust the article counts for most sports accordingly. The difference between the 2013–14 FBS and FCS football team numbers and our article count is the actual addition of several new FBS teams. Our men's basketball categories do not distinguish between Division I, II and II teams (hence we have 511 article, when there were only 346 Division I men's teams. I'm pretty sure we have pretty close to 100% coverage of Division I football and men's basketball, but you may be correct regarding baseball, in that some of the team categories are shells without a stand-alone team article.
That said, WP:NCAA as a coordinating subproject of WP:College football, WP:College basketball and WP:College baseball has merit, provided no one tries to duplicate the existing architecture of the three existing parent WikiProjects. It would simply become a shared talk space to discuss issues common to all college sports, to keep to-do lists for college sports other than football, basketball and baseball, and to memorialize the agreed standards that apply to all. What we don't need is an independent WikiProject NCAA, with a different set of WikiProject member editors, which actually makes agreement and coordination more difficult.
As for prioritizing efforts, you are 100% correct, sir: "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. . ." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you both. I really don't care at this point if an article for Georgia State Panthers softball or Indiana Hooiers men's cross country are created. I would like some greater consistency for articles/categories/navboxes that are already here, including main athletic department pages. I would take your top ten in a given sport a bit further and expand it to any team that has won a national championship at the Division I level. Per your point DL1, and not to sound elitist either, but I think a level of chaos could ensue and intrude into more established territory if some editor who doesn't give a rip about WP:CFB basketball and baseball standards changes things in the Alabama Crimson Tide football article because of some men's soccer team is set up a certain way. I would whole heartedly support a WP:college sports "daughter" project so long as both overall college sports standards and the standards of the host sport are both respected and an equitable meshing of ideas can occur where applicable.And to prove my point I wasn't expecting GSU to be blue linked but I'm fine that it is.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: One of the first things we did when the College softball task force was formed two years ago was to create at least a redirect to the main program articles for all NCAA D-I softball teams, so that they would all work correctly with the Csb link template. Now, the challenge is to take all of those redirects and expand them out into program articles, which we've been slowly beavering away at ever since. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
EJ, might I suggest that before you create stub articles to replace those softball redirects that you add a couple of well-written paragraphs about the softball teams into their main program articles? When the time is right, and an editor has the time to do it right, those paragraphs may serve as the basis of a stand-alone article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


That's OK! I was thinking it had been relisted on a different day and you'd reverted for me to comment on that day, Couldn't find that day though! lol. Szzuk (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

On importance scale[edit]

Should I take the current importance scale to read that players from national championship teams get a 'high' rating like the season; Or, do I take them to be merely players and receive a 'low' rating? Given the asterisks/footnotes both interpretations seem possible, and the difference is enough that I felt I had to ask before any later discussion takes place. Cake (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll take a look, Cake, but I can't imagine it was intended to rate every player on a championship team as "high." If that's what it says or implies, we need to change that. No one should be a "high" merely by virtue of having been on championship team. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would think not, but there is a certain plausibility for some figures as not-low for such an accomplishment (maybe George W. Gregory or William Wurtenburg or Tillie Lamar). As is, the footnote applying to both seasons and persons reads "National champion team seasons, Heisman Trophy winners, consensus first-team All-Americans, should start two levels higher than given" and so hopefully you see how I might get the implication, though it only occurred recently, for I assume as you do. Cake (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I may also need to know whether, in bumping a player article from low to mid, by "All-American" one means first-team All-American or any-team All-American any-team All-American for certain selectors. I've been using just first-team selections but that may have been unwise. Cake (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus first-team All-Americans and first-team selections by major selectors get the bump. I'll take a look at the way it's phrased. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Consensus is bumped to 'high', but I ask whether the intention is for first-team, non-consensus All-Americans or any-team (by major selectors) All-Americans are intended to get the bump to 'mid' . Thanks. Cake (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The TfD backlog is so large that...[edit]

...we've exceeded the transclusion limit at WP:TFD. But, of course, if I were to close and convert/orphan some of these, I'd be reverted by an unhelpful admin. Alakzi (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Alakzi: I just did a quick check: the last admin-closed TfD was on May 12, for a discussion that was opened on May 2: [36]. And you have to go back awhile before that to ind the next one. Martijn has been AWOL since March, and Plastikspork has only been turning up every ten days or two weeks to close a handful. It may be time to recruit three or four more admins, preferably guys who have experience closing other XfDs. Let me see what I can do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. In meantime, I've wrapped up the multihulls one, which has been running for nearly two months. Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm running over there to see what you did with that. It was a complete mess of a discussion, about a complete mess of a navbox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Alakzi: NorthAmerica1000 is picking off a few TfD closes at my request. Hopefully, some of the other admins I pinged will close a few this weekend, too. We really need to expand our pool of regular TfD closes to five or six, then it wouldn't be such a burden to any one closer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Considering that I've now been immortalised on a user page, I probably shouldn't be allowed to close any more TfDs. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Other TfD-related stuff[edit]

@Alakzi: BTW, when you have some time, we need to discuss what to do with those American football game/championship infoboxes. I finally spent some time looking at the parameters and the actual uses, and I have several suggestions that might make a consolidation more palatable and more effective for users. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Sure. I've converted the Super Bowl box to get a feel of the conversion; I don't think that merging all parameters indiscriminately would be prudent, exactly, but users of these infoboxes haven't stepped up to offer any suggestions. Alakzi (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Alakzi: From the standpoint of a back-to-basics sports editor, the fundamental problem with a straight merge is that the Super Bowl box has a bunch of marginally relevant optional parameters that should not be available for other uses. I recognize, however, that the core parameters are the same, and there is no reason why the layout and design should not be the same. Several of these templates are natural merges: (1) The NFL championship game (predecessor of the Super Bowl) with the old AFL championship game, to which the UFL championship game (only 3 transclusions) could be added; call it "Infobox American football championship game." Ditto for the World Bowl and Belgian Bowl. The Arena Bowl requires one additional option: Arena (rather than stadium), because arena ball is played indoors, and the venue is not called a "stadium." The "Iron Man" option can be deleted; it's not being used in any of the existing transclusions, so it won't be missed. That leaves the question about what to do about the fan-crufty Super Bowl-specific options, like "National Anthem Singer" and "Half-Time Show," which should not be permitted to be imported into the more general uses. I suggest you use the new "Infobox American football championship game" as the base template, with a wrap and a module for the Super Bowl, and then maintain separate instructions for the Super Bowl. Anyway, those are my thoughts, and I wanted to bounce them off you first before dragging the TfD discussion down a tangent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • These all sound very sensible to me and are pertinent to the TfD. Alakzi (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Alakzi: Given the concerns expressed regarding excluding the Super Bowl-specific parameters from the more general uses, what would you suggest from a structure standpoint? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Parameters exclusive to Super Bowl could be made inoperable depending on the value of the |championship= parameter. Alakzi (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it might be to our advantage that there's nobody to close TfDs. ;-) Alakzi (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Alakzi: That sounds vaguely conspiratorial. What sort of trouble are you drawing me into now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm kidding. I thought you might've wanted to comment at the football infoboxes TfD, but it looks like you've been keeping busy with other things. Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Alakzi -- I get that you guys are pals here, but you probably could have done well to let an editor not involved with me or Dirt to do the honors. Appearances, and all that ... especially when you categorize the right to !vote of a nom as "off-topic." --Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the move to ... though while still hatting it as Dirt had .. you made the hat note NPOV. Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Epeefleche's edit summary: "If an uninvolved editor wishes to hat it, with an appropriate summary, I defer." Be careful what you ask for; in this case, you got it. And for the record, Epee, Alakzi and I disagree on points of substance nearly as often as we agree, but we're always civil to each other, and, as a result we keep each other honest. Except for that one time I called him a "poopyhead," and I later apologized for that. Alakzi is definitely not a poopyhead. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Navbox question[edit]

Hey, I have a question: When a navbox is created, should half of the links have articles? I stumbled upon Template:Georgia State Panthers quarterback navbox and the six names listed do not have an article, and therefore isn't even be listed in articles. I don't know what the criteria is for this. Thanks. Corky | Chat? 15:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Ideally, a navbox should have no red links, but in order to survive a TfD review it should substantially more than half of the included content as blue links to existing stand-alone Wikipedia articles. Pipe links to the same article should not count toward your minimum (e.g., seven coaches, all linked to the same list article). Also, if a navbox only has two or three links, even if they are all blue links, it may be subject to being deleted at TfD. Remember: navboxes exist primarily to assist reader navigation among existing articles. A bunch of red links do not assist reader navigation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've nominated it. Corky | Chat? 16:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Just noticed something regarding the color used for the Wisconsin Badgers templates[edit]

Hi Dirtlawyer, I'm not sure where the colors pull from for the templates in this category, Category:Wisconsin Badgers navigational boxes, and it's two subcategories. But it shows #BB1F41, when it should be #B70101 per [37] Any chance we can update them? Or is there edit request on some module/template page that I have to submit? Just curious, thanks for any assistance! Cheers, —  dainomite   04:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Dainomite, Module:College color/data holds the color codes for all these templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank ya much Jweiss11! Face-smile.svg Cheers, —  dainomite   04:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you've already fixed this, Dainomite?
@Jweiss11: I hope you've got the color module and related pages watch-listed. With all of our college color schemes increasingly centralized -- and soon to be completely centralized -- the potential for vandalism, mischief and bad edits of wideranging impact has risen. Dainomite is one of the Good Guys, but any and all edits to the color module, etc., need to be immediately checked for accuracy (based on athletic programs' official hex colors) and appropriateness (based on contrast ratios). All knowledgeable editors should have the module watch-listed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it's all taken care of. Thank you everyone! I of course watchlisted it as well. If it's that centralized with so many dependent templates etc, would it not be a terrible idea to throw a pinklock on Module:College color/data? (Which is actually what I assumed it was already and why I asked before where I would make my edit request) I can't imagine a lot of edits will need to be made once it's finished. Basing that on my completely uneducated guess on how frequently colleges change their official colors... :p —  dainomite   05:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The module is still being tweaked and perfected, but when it's 100%, yeah, it's going to need some measure of protection. The temptation to screw with it will be too great. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, and thinking like that is why you get paid the big bucks! Face-smile.svg On a semi-related note.. How do you think the Gators will fare this next season? What are your thoughts on McElwain? —  dainomite   06:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree but, how do we determine what the color hex for a school is when all they list is a PMS scheme?UCO2009bluejay | Y'all want to talk? 19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@UCO2009bluejay: Sometimes you have to dig for the hex colors; whenever I've looked, I've been able to find them. Most recently, I had to spend 15 or 20 minutes looking for the Florida State hex colors, which were not listed with the Pantone Matching System (PMS) specs on the FSU website. If the university has a website, someone knows what their hex colors are. Fortunately, most of the universities and/or their athletic programs have their PMS and hex color schemes posted somewhere on their websites. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your hatting of a discussion, where you are involved[edit]

Poor form. Please don't hat a discussion, where you are an involved editor, that involves another editor's writing. As you did here. Worse yet -- you characterized it in a manner you should have known the other editor (me) would object to. Perhaps you are embarrassed by your incivility, and failure to follow AfG, and the fact that you were wrong. No matter. Let others read it. Don't hide it. And don't mis-characterize it in a hatnote. Many thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Epee, here's what "poor form" is:
  • (1) inventing Wikipedia policies that don't exist, such as invalidating all !votes of blocked editors;
  • (2) complaining when another editor points out that such a policy does not exist, and then personally attacking them;
  • (3) intentionally mischaracterizing another editor's succession of multiple accounts over a period of years as "sock-puppetry" -- when there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever he ever engaged in sock-puppetry -- and horribly hypocritical given your own personal history of being blocked for running multiple sock puppets for the purpose of gaming discussions;
  • (4) when someone attempts to move an obviously distracting digression from an AfD discussion page to your user talk page, and you simply delete it with a dismissive remark -- and more than a little ironic when you expect the other editor to host your angry comments on their user talk page;
  • (5) there is nothing inaccurate about "Off-topic digression re Epeefleche's desire to invalidate AfD nominator Mellowed Fillmore's !vote because he is blocked"; in fact, it's perfectly accurate. Alakzi's retitling of the hat box is obviously less pointed, but rather vague.
  • {6) incivilities such as describing me or my comments as:
(a) "baseless loud bluster";
(b) "bluster bullshit";
(c) "I know you proudly for some reason trumpet that you are a lawyer. But pleeeeeze, spare us any weasely wikilawyering on this."
(d) "ridiculous";
(e) "attacking through falsehood my integrity";
(f) "blow-hardy mis-truth"
(g) "uncivilly";
(h) "officiously";
(i) "absurdity (edit summary)" and
(j) "dirty" and "dirtier" (edit summary).

In exchange, here are my comments:

  • (1) "I have never seen any such policy applied in XfD discussions, short of someone getting blocked for using sock-puppets to game the !vote. To my knowledge, no such policy exists, and while Mellowed Fillmore is now blocked, it was at his own request after a block review by admin Floquenbeam. Using Mellowed Fillmore's intentionally enforced retirement to discredit this or any other XfD he initiated smacks of gaming the system. Please consider deleting your comment above," with the edit summary "note to Epeefleche."
  • (2) "There is no such policy, Epee. Period. You just made all of that up out of whole cloth. If there is such a policy, please link to it now. Mellowed Fillmore was an editor in good standing at the time this AfD was initiated, and there has never been any insinuation that he engaged in sock-puppetry. Ever. No closing admin will ever accept what you are trying to do here: it is very bad gamesmanship," with the edit summary "reply: please link to the policy you seek to enforce."
  • (3) "Again, Epee, please link to the Wikipedia policy you are seeking to enforce," with the edit summary "Epee, please link to the policy you seek to enforce. Thank you."
  • (4) "Again, Epee, please link to the policy you seek to enforce -- having requested this three times, I assume there is no such policy. And, no, AGF has nothing to do with it," with the edit summary "Epee, please link to the policy you seek to enforce. Thank you."
  • (5) "Gee whiz, Epee, you quote a passage from WP:AfD as if it says 'blocked editors' !votes don't count.' It says no such thing. And you don't have to be a 'lawyer' or 'wikilawyer' to recognize that; you just have to be able to read English. I've made my point: there is no such policy that !votes of blocked editors don't count. Sorry. The rest is on you. Feel free to call me a 'weasely wikilawyer', but you're still wrong. BTW, you may also want to review WP:CIVIL -- that is an actual policy," with the edit summary "and we're done here."
  • (6) "This off-topic discussion has been hatted as a courtesy to other AfD discussion participants, who will probably find it distracting to the main discussion thread regarding the article subject's notability. The closing administrator is requested to consider these tangential arguments, or not, in his or her discretion. If other editors are curious, you can see how this argument concludes on User:Epeefleche's user talk page," with the hat note "Off-topic digression re Epeefleche's desire to invalidate AfD nominator Mellowed Fillmore's !vote because he is blocked" and the edit summary "hat off-topic digression regarding Epeefleche's desire to invalidate AfD nominator's !vote because he is blocked."

Separate and apart from your misunderstanding and misreading of what you believe that WP:AfD actually says, one of us has objectively engaged in uncivil and even insulting dialog, but that someone is not me. Please feel free to get some input from an uninvolved third-party. Please do not feel free to delete my comments from my user talk page; I think they lay out the case quite nicely for anyone who has a perverse curiosity to see what this dust-up is all about, thanks.

Please know that if you really want to discuss your misreading of WP:AfD, you're welcome to do so here on my user talk page -- and I will not simply delete your comments here, as you did mine on your talk page, with the dismissive edit summary "classic IDHT." Civility is a two-way street, Epee, and it does not consist of the intentionally insulting words you have used throughout this little contretemps. Rather than simply acknowledging that there is no Wikipedia policy that requires that the !votes of a blocked editor be discounted, disregarded or invalidated, including the first sentence of WP:AfD which you're fond of quoting, you have upped the ante with each subsequent comment by becoming increasingly belligerent, uncivil and downright insulting. All I've done is ask you to link to the policy which supports your position. In return, I got insults.

So, that's where we are. BTW, for the record, "weaselly" is spelled with two l's, and "wiki-lawyer" should probably be hyphenated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

* I certainly don't want to get in the substance of this squabble, but I can't help defending Epee's spelling. Specifically, "weasely" can be spelled with one or two l's, and the one l spelling has wide acceptance in modern usage. See Wiktionary, Your Dictionary, Wordnik, Urban Dictionary, Scrabble Word Finder. Also, wikilawyering is not generally hyphenated. See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. ;) Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Cbl62, the normal construction to convert a noun into an adverb would be to add "ly" to the existing root word. Of course, all bets are off in English spelling if you're using it as an adjective. For the record, Merriam-Wesbter and both list two L's as the preferred spelling. Oxford does not even list one "L" as an option. American Heritage does not even acknowledge that it's a proper word. I would probably not use the word in serious writing, but would go with "weasel-like." In any event, I'm sure it's not the first time Epee has used the phrase to great effect because of its humorous implications and its alliteration with wiki-lawyer.
As for whether wiki-lawyer should be hyphenated, given our shared profession and the linked essay, I will defer to your obviously greater knowledge. In my personal experience, a "wikilawyer" is someone who cites a Wikipedia policy or guideline with which you disagree; someone who cites a Wikipedia policy or guideline with which you agree is just well-versed. In retrospect, my choice of user name was a mistake -- too easy an opening for some folks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

AfD head's up: CFB rivalry articles[edit]

I'll continue looking for sources referencing these two rivalries. The Georgia Tech–Tulane football rivalry article does now have a recent, third-party article referenced that is entirely written about the 98-year-old rivalry (New Orleans Advocate article here), and I believe it more than meets the parameters you mentioned. I haven't yet found a similar source for the Ole Miss–Tulane football rivalry article but will continue to search for it, as that is Ole Miss' oldest rivalry. Bobster687 (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bobster687: If you can find at least two articles of that quality for each of these two rivalries, with some significant, but lesser coverage you will be in good shape, and you can fill in details of the histories from non-independent sources such as I mentioned on your talk page. I just nominated about two dozen CFB rivalry articles for AfD last winter, and all but one of them was deleted, so I have some understanding of what it will take to survive the AfD analysis. You've been around since 2006, so you're familiar with the general notability guidelines, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)