User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2017-12

Wanted to Thank You

• Hi Walter, I wanted to post a Thank You for a number of your good edits to other contributors and corrections to some of my small errors. And it is fine for you to discuss about whether there is motivation and lack of relevance & sources for a section that may be perceived by some people as criticism of the subject.

And I also wanted to say Sorry because you messaged me that I may have removed a table or chart. I still have to look into that to see if I made a mistake.

I haven't posted thanks & sorry yet because I am too busy addressing your fast smack edits. Please respect when new content is added with several neutral & referenced details that are much better than the rough draft of the first proposal. For example the massive news coverage & CEO participation about the opening day issue addresses your initial questions about the pertinance. Canuckle (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox & Georgia Overlink

Minor suggestion here Walter. You do good most often with your frequent removal of OverLinks. However recently the removal of wikilinks to Georgia country makes me suggest that you keep more of that and similar wikilinks in the infobox and maybe article to assist readers. I say Georgia country because in the English-language population, readers may assume that Georgia is a US state or somewhere else, not the Asian country. So clicking on the wikilink will quickly show them the correct location. And also value wikilinks in Infoboxes more so than duplicate ones in the article body. Because Infoboxes are highly valuable to readers and are likely the first and possibly only area of reference for them. Much more so than the full body of the article.

Hope this makes sense for you.

Canuckle (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's just a county and does not need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Georgian luge team could be linked and there could be several others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Or link to Georgia at the Olympics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume 'county' written above is a typo. Because it is a countRy : Georgia (country) . And while "major geographic features" such as USA or London, England are said to not be Overlinked. Less familiar locations for English-language readers could be linked. Also, WP:OVERLINK] states "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes," So keep doing your improvements on a small details ... But please occassionally consider how leaving links might help users. Canuckle (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. It should have been country. And United States, U.S. or US, never USA (WP:NOTUSA). We are not dealing with infoboxes either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User Alternative IP Box

I just created the new Template:User Alternative IP box. It's exactly like Template:User alternative account you're currently using, except it links to contributions rather than the user page, since it is specifically designed for IP accounts. I haven't created a template like this before, so I would appreciate any reviews or suggestions. I thought it might be useful to you. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Can they adjust Access Date dmy?

Hi Walter - Do you know how to ask them to adjust the Access Date button on the citenews/citeweb reference template? Because when I and others click on the button, it results in 2 January 2017 format which you spend a lot of effort on corrections to make consistent with the mdy January 2 2017 date format standard. Amazing it's been that way for so long. Just a minor suggestion. Canuckle (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Canuckle: If you use either reFill or Webreflinks those tools automatically check if one of the date formatting templates is present and uses the date format. If it doesn't find one the former uses dmy while the latter uses ISO-8601 (YYYY-MM-DD). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

BlogTO

Hi Walter, I noticed you reverted my edit a few days ago on Toronto sign because the source was BlogTO. It's not a personal blogging site but rather a locally-oriented news website that tends to focus on arts and culture in Toronto that's been cited quite a few times across Wiki. That being said, since the story about the maple leaf has filtered out to the "old media" (my personal opinions of the Toronto Sun notwithstanding) I won't be putting it back. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@RA0808: Thanks for the info. I know what you mean about the Toronto Sun, but they have what it takes to meet WP:RS, while I couldn't find the necessary info on the BlogTO site to satisfy RS. I was looking for a staff page and an editorial policy. Glad we got a source anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cast Table (Murdoch Mysteries)

I don't understand why this specific cast table doesn't have capitalized letters, while pretty much all other cast tables for other tv shows are all capitalized?

Forsaken11 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Forsaken11: Let me break this down into two separate questions. Are you suggesting that I am misinterpreting MOS:CAPS? The words are not complete sentences or proper names, so I think I am treating them correctly. I could be wrong. {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} seems to argue that I am wrong, yet these are not templates that you used. I would be interested in knowing how I have misunderstood that MoS.

Could the other articles be applying MOS:CAPS incorrectly? I suspect that they could be, and the templates I linked above may need to be updated as well based on the current understanding of the MoS. Perhaps we should take this to the talk at MOS:CAPS. I would certainly like to know if I am or am not correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you misinterpreted MOS:CAPS, I'm just curious as to why this is the first time I have seen a cast table with lowercase letters . It does surprise me, because if you are right then a lot of experienced users have made this mistake. Take a look at the Grey's Anatomy cast table. That is a pretty busy article, and nobody has pointed out that the table should be lowercase. Yes, I do think that we should bring this up on the template itself. Forsaken11 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The link to software maintenance

Software maintenance was removed because it appears in the navbox Software distribution. According to our policy on see also sections we do not normally repeat items in see also lists which appear elsewhere on the page. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Natasha Owens

Hello Walter. Could you perhaps have a glance at this one? Thanks. Karst (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Quickflight

Just fixed some references on this one. I noticed the CCM link went to a 404. Tried to retrieve it, but no luck. Also reviewed the AfD from 2011 and was wondering what your opinion is on it now, considering you edited the page before. Karst (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They were a notable band. First pure new wave/synthpop band in CCM. ATF was doing similar in the UK, but they were more guitar-driven. Notable for their advancement of the genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Canada

I am not sure if you noticed but I am in a small edit war over at the Canada article. I am simply not a fan of the new changes naming people in the lead nor am I a fan of sources (wedsites) being added. I not sure what to do here....never had a problem like this at our parent Canada article...that is someone not willing to seek consensus after there changes have been reverted from a version stable for a decade. You watch the article what do you think is better? the old version with no names and no sources...or the one I keep reverting?-this version or this version. I am having a problem in a few articles with this same person...mainly about the usage of New France vs Canada (New France). He seems to think history follows the place named Canada and its evolution instead of the history of all the areas that now encompass Canada as a whole. I have linked some scholarly books for him in hopes he abandons websites in his search for information. -- Moxy (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed and because an editor—not the one you're having problems with—is being belligerent, I'm avoiding the page. I'll request page protection until consensus is reached. For the record, I do like the new infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I dont really care about the infobox and is why I haven't really commented. They are arguing about adding links that are already in the article so makes no differences to me. My main concern here is we have an editor that seems to have very odd view of how history is told.-- Moxy (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am getting even more concerned when i read the sources being used. I dont think hes reading the sources as a whole...just searching for the text he likes. For example for claiming 1534 as the founding of Canada hes using this source (that I like} but clearly say "Nevertheless New France was officially founded around 1604 to 1608 by Intendant Samuel de Champlain and Pierre Dugua de Mons. W. I dont dispute the date 1534 ...but I do have a problem with the wording used when even the sources he links use the right terms for the right time and he does not. -- Moxy (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Billingsley (musician)

I prodded this perhaps a little hastily, but it was then pointed out to me that his latest album had entered the Billboard charts. I tagged the article for an update. Perhaps you can add a few references from the Christian Music arsenal (you are more familiar with it then I am) to ensure the article has notability established. At the moment it just reads as if he is a local minister who sings and writes music on the side. Karst (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Karst: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music might be a better place to make the request. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers. Karst (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay Kokinoma (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha Gazelle

Hi, what should we do? Aha Gazelle does not have a Wikipedia page. He just joined Reach Records and the 1•1•Six clique. Should we make a page? I can work on it, but don't know how to start a page. RoyalsLife 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@RoyalsLife: Having a contract does not make a musician notable. If the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO (with sufficient references to support) then create the article! Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake

Walter, I apologize for editing in a bad source in Reno 1868 FC. Would this be acceptable? http://www.kolotv.com/content/sports/Reno-1868-FC-fans-start-Battle-Born-Brigade-club-388205802.html

Thanks for keeping people like me from messing things up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaffOutLoud (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@RaffOutLoud: It looks good to me. Hopefully it passes muster with the other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Unwed Sailor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is misplaced and There is nothing for me to do here and Chubbles has clearly made a point that I both understand and reject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Are you proposing that track lists for albums fail WP:V? Albums are published works; you can take the track list right off the back cover, and even if you don't, there are trivially easy verifying sources for most albums, like Allmusic. This is not in the slightest controversial information, and hidebound demand for sources for it seems only to serve WP:POINT and WP:LAWYER purposes. It's like demanding a reliable source other than the book itself for the contents of a collection of short stories. If what irks you is the presence of a stand-alone article, the relevant content can be moved to a discography page. Chubbles (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chubbles: The reason is present in the PROD: the albums fail WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. That's why they were redirected as well, yet you claim that the content should be saved somewhere rather than deleted. Yet, WP:V states that it doesn't need to be kept at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to content; if the albums don't meet the notability standard, that is not a condemnation of the content in toto. Chubbles (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Move it before it's deleted and restore the redirect yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why am I being bullied into this action? Why don't you do something constructive and create a discography page, instead of demanding that I take care of what you call a mess? I don't understand the urgency or stridency of your demands at all. Who died and made you admin? Chubbles (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting that I am bullying you into the action? I did do something constructive: I changed the articles to redirects as they were not notable. There is no urgency either: PRODs take seven days to complete. Alternately, you could remove the PROD and I would be forced to take the articles to AfD which take at least a week to close. I don't believe the content is worth saving so there's no motivation for me to save the track listings. And discographies don't usually contain track listings, so I wouldn't definitely not create such an article for that purpose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Barnstar.

Dear Walter , I’m sending you this message, as I have noticed that you made a contribution to the article Worcester Hydra, and I decided, that for you it can be interesting to have a look at a new Worcestershire Barnstar, which I designed just couple of days ago for the very good, but not very active at the moment Worcestershire Project (WP:WORCS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire I think, that the Project of beautiful Worcestershire (as soon, as British weather will become a bit nicer, I’m planning to visit the Archaeological sites of Worcestershire, make good photos and then to start an article about Archaeological findings of Worcestershire — the place, where everything sounds as an ancient melody) deserves to have its own symbol, what will also work as momentum of positive energy, helping to make it more lively; so, as a participant of the Wikipedia Awards Project, I decided to create WORCS Barnstar, using as the central motive an emblem, used even in ancient times — by Worcestershire units at the Battle of Agincour; now this symbol - county's famed black pear - also decorates the Flag of Worcestershire. So, it will be very kind of you, if you will look at the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards and give your support to the Worcestershire Barnstar, if you will like it. Your participation will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Atlanta FC opening game

Hi Walter, I noticed you recently edited the Atlanta FC article to replace my description of their opening weekend with a much terser version. I assume that due to the timing that this was accidental, but I just wanted to check if there was some more measured reason to your edits before simply reverting to the more detailed version. If I don't hear back I will assume it was unintentional and revert the changes. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@GiovanniSidwell: Less is more. If you can say it in fewer words, it's better. Not sure that having the third-highest attendance out of eleven matches is significant though, which is why I removed that. However, the original "reference" pointing to a Google search was terrible and your addition of sources was appreciated. Check other team articles to see how their first match is described and if you insist on verbosity, you can explain why in your edit.

This discussion should have probably taken place on the talk page of the article since other editors may be wondering where the addition went and why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted here because I did not think there would be a discussion about the content, in my mind removing content is not a "copy edit" and thus assumed your edit was erroneous somehow. I will consider your comments, and move any further discussion to the Atlanta FC talk page. Sorry for my misunderstanding. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Redlinks

I saw you mention in edit summaries that redlinks are no longer acceptable. Can you show me where this consensus arose? Because I was not aware that this was the case. I actually had, during my featured article review for Viking metal, someone recommend a redlink be added for a term mentioned in the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been reading {{uw-redlink}} wrong. I was reading it as "indiscriminate addition of redlinks" when it is actually "indiscriminate removal of redlinks". There is no consensus, but experienced editors are moving away from adding redlinks. As you likely know, Wikipedia:Red link is where the guideline is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. I'm not sure I like that trend, but we'll see how things go.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

News to me. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking dispute

Hello Walter Görlitz, I am understanding of the fact that you are currently blocked. I do not look down on you for it and I am taking it into account when writing. I replied to your message on my talk page three days ago, but I have not received a response. I just want to ensure that you see it so that for any further actions you take, it is known that you are aware of my counterargument. I am willing to take into consideration any response you give once your block expires, whether here or on my talk page.

Here is my (slightly modified) response:
"I appreciate your desire to uphold WP:OVERLINK and WP:LINKING, but they aren't violated in this case. Take a look at the example at WP:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force – linking the typical instruments in music genre infoboxes is standard, as seen in the rock, jazz, disco, country, reggae, blues, soul, house, bluegrass, heavy metal, rhythm and blues, lounge, hardstyle, funk, K-pop, J-pop, Mandopop, dance-pop, electro, ska, Miami bass, grime, contemporary R&B, flamenco, polka, crunk, gospel, surf music, Afrobeat, drum and bass, baggy, schlager, Paisley Underground, new jack swing, grunge, trap, cakewalk, New Age music, glitch, punk rock, zydeco, jungle, skiffle, horrorcore, snap, dansband, world, intelligent dance music, bossa nova, boogie-woogie, wonky pop, contemporary Christian music, highlife, blackgaze, bouyon, chiptune, yé-yé, kayōkyoku, beat, hardcore, merengue, dubstep, rocksteady, boogie, old-time music, ryūkōka, doo-wop, moombahton, big band, downtempo, trance, Jesus music, samba, Britpop, mariachi, dub, emo, and vaporwave articles. I find it highly unlikely that all 70+ of these music genre articles are formatted incorrectly."

Regards, LifeofTau 08:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Ask yourself a question. Is a reader going to ask themselves, "what's that country where rock music started? You know, the big one south of Canada and North of Mexico?" If you think they are and will then go to the Wikipedia article to click through to it, then it's not an overlink. Similarly if you think they'll want a link to a guitar or electric guitar there, then it should definitely be there. That's essentially what WP:OVERLINK says. Now I appreciate you bringing this here, but it should probably be discussed on a project page, either on the linking project or Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Would you mind if I moved it there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There may have been a misunderstanding, as I am actually in agreement regarding whether countries should be linked (I would argue that subnational entities should still be linked, however). This may be confusing since this change of opinion came only shortly after the initial dispute began on the urban contemporary gospel page. However, both my revision on that page and my response here concern only the linking of instruments, which is where I believe there is disagreement. While I appreciate your conciliatory approach, whether a policy such as WP:OVERLINK is violated cannot possibly be decided on a user-by-user basis; it is instead much more reasonable to consider the established precedent set by the majority of other articles. This is why I went to the trouble of linking over 70 music genre articles that link instruments in the infobox — if linking the typical instruments was a violation of WP:OVERLINK, it would not be done on all these music genre articles, especially on many of the most significant and highly trafficked ones. As for whether this discussion should be moved to another page, while I wouldn't mind, I don't see how it would be appropriate — I think it would make sense if this was a discussion of whether the existing policies or standards should be changed rather than of whether they are being upheld or followed in this specific instance.

Apologies for such a belated reply. LifeofTau 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Zebra striping

I want to reach out to you personally first regarding the zebra striping issue on Seattle Reign FC#Coaching staff before getting Wikipedia:FOOTY involved. Mostly, I am interested in hearing in greater detail why you thought zebra striping is an appropriate choice there, considering that usually one only uses the function to highlight a particular row for very specific reason (rather than purely for aesthetic reasons as you seemed to be doing). In your edit history summary, you wrote that "Yet the function is there" to justify zebra striping; this struck me as illogical since just because a function is available doesn't mean one has to use it or use it for no particular reason. Furthermore, none of the table templates listed in Wikipedia:FOOTY#Manual of style uses zebra striping by row, and the default shade of gray highlight is typically only used for the header row (e.g., United States women's national soccer team#Coaching staff). From my point of view, you seemed to be insisting on a stylistic choice that makes little sense, potentially creates confusion (e.g., "Why is this particular assistant coach highlighted? Did something happen with him/her?"), and is not currently used in other football pages. Mightytotems (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think FOOTY is the right place as they designed and "own" the template. They don't list staff on the articles at the MoS so I'm not sure why you are appealing there and plenty of articles don't use the correct formatting, so appealing to them doesn't help either. I could easily appeal to all the articles that correctly use the zebra striping so it's a zero-gain discussion. FOOTY is the right place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. I still don't fully understand why you think zebra striping is the "correct" formatting for tables, but I'll do what you suggested and take it up with Wikipedia:FOOTY. Mightytotems (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Lukas Podolski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is misplaced. It should be discussed on the article of the subject, not here. The guideline is clear.

---

With respect, no it wasn't explained in the revert, hence my initial message on your page asking for clarification. If it had been explained to my satisfaction or understanding, I wouldn't be here! As I said initially, your revert on the Lukas Podolski page claimed I had violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, but as I explained here earlier, as far as I'm aware I have not done so, and need you to explain specifically what rule I have violated, given that I have already said that his nationality is relevant as his notability is for representing a country he is not from, and that at no point did I reference his ethnicity. So, again, could you please explain why you made the revert, given that the explanation there was decidedly not satisfactory. Thanks! The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

With respect WP:OPENPARA is clear: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." He is notable as a professional footballer. He plays for a professional club and a national team. As such "German" is the only adjective that should be used and his current club may be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lmao I'm so sad that he's leaving Germany he was my fav player😓 Miasanmia2002 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

ISO Master

Template:RestoredPROD Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Headlines

So with a section like this where all the song titles are formatted with semicolons, how would I proceed? I would normally put bold markup. Now, apparently, subheaders would be appropriate? I'm so confused because it clearly doesn't work on every page. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Convert to prose or possibly a table? That's a good question to raise at accessibility. Great job on standardizing all of the album articles btw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

child cats for USL team cats?

I don't understand what you're talking about. I added Category:United Soccer League players which contains players who have played in at least one USL league match, which PC has done. You're confusing me with United Soccer League players by club, but that category doesn't exist. – Michael (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mikemor92: If the you add Category:United Soccer League players to Category:Orlando City B players, and the latter is on the PC page, then he's in both automatically. If you remove the United Soccer League players category from the Orlando City B players category, you have to add United Soccer League players category to each player on the team. Why didn't you continue this discussion on your talk page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not continuing the discussion on the talk page. And by the way, if they never played in a USL match at any point in their career, then no I don't have to add the United Soccer League players category. – Michael (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Just to clarify: should they have Category:Orlando City B players if they never played for them, or are you saying Orlando City B was in a different league in the past? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well no, it's not like a city was granted an expansion team and they decided to use the same name from a team playing in a different league. But OCB started last season. As for the question regarding having Category:Orlando City B players despite not playing for them. That's debatable since they're an affiliated club of Orlando City SC. For players that are on the Orlando City SC roster, if they're assigned to OCB, but they end up not playing a match for the USL team, then I don't even add the club to the infobox. For players that are just contracted by Orlando City B, but not Orlando City, then yes I would leave the category on their page. I know it sounds confusing, but I've been directing traffic with stuff like this, just to maintain a little consistency. – Michael (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Poison & Wine redirect

Thanks for the redirect on Poison & Wine. I am ambivalent on the EP's notability, but I wonder if you could help me understand what happens to this article now. If it's non-notable, shouldn't it be nominated for deletion? Otherwise, it just hangs there where nobody will ever see it. Or is that okay? I noticed the article's existence a couple of weeks ago, and linked to it from The Civil Wars discography; now the link just forwards to The Civil Wars. Should I just remove the wikilink from the discography page? The way it is now seems silly. Thanks for helping me better understand how these things work. Mitchell k dwyer (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mitchell k dwyer: Since it may be a useful search term or used as a link for an article, it is likely to become a redirect anyhow. It's easy enough to redirect it to the band's discog article. If you want, it can go to an AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Glad to have you working here

…and hope you can stand a curmudgeonly old editor, so that we might work together at some point. XP Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mark Castillo

In reply to your response on both Mark Castillo's page and on my talk page, there is indeed a source I did forget to put in the article but as well he did post on Facebook that he was born deaf. I'll gladly put the edit back on as well as adding the reference. NellyOriginPMOD (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the source you added? It's written as a letter by Castillo but immediately after the author of the article states "Okay, okay, so I obviously made that whole thing up". Removed again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Kind of my fault for not reading it 100% NellyOriginPMOD (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

L1O Coaches

I was going to update the list of L1O coaches from what the league website has - do I need a separate reference for each team page or can I just include a general note about where the info came from? -Gopherbashi (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gopherbashi: A general note should be fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks -Gopherbashi (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Question

I have a question for you, why you removed periods from the notes section in album articles, such as this and saying that they are not sentences. Is that even in the guidelines? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• @TheAmazingPeanuts: They're not all sentences. Some, especially the first ones, are sentence fragments. The credits for the sampling are sentences. See WP:BULLET and MOS:LISTBULLET. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay the sample credits are sentences, do they need to require periods if they are full sentences? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

They could probably use them, but they could easily be reformatted as not being sentences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I made this edit, what do you think of it? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

recent NASL edit & unrelated question

Hi Walter,

My thought process was simple on that North American Soccer League (1968–84) edit, if "soccer" inside [[ ]] already redirects the reader to "association football" anyway, then why would you go to the trouble of setting up the link as "association football | soccer" ? That just seemed to superfluous to me. If that's flawed logic b/c of MOS or something else, I get it. No worries on my end. Just trying to be tidy.

While I have you here, I have another question though. Another editor has begun putting flag icons beside the names off every NASL all-star team on the NASL season pages. So far 1978 season – 1982 season have been done. Is this considered an overuse of flag icons? I seem to remember something like this coming up between two editors a few years back on another footballing page and wanted to ask someone with more experience to take a look at what was going on. Thanks and, as always, kind regards –Creativewill (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Songs about cannabis

There are 85 entries in Category:Songs about cannabis. Removing the invitation from WikiProject Songs to improve these articles, or create new songs, is a disservice to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)