User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 24

Lake country Dockhounds draft page

I created a draft page for the new American Association team, the Lake Country Dockhounds. Seeing that you are active in the American Association pages, would you mind taking a look at it and let me know your thoughts. BrewCityStu (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of style fixes, but overall it looks good. oknazevad (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Addams Family 2

Hello, thanks for removing potential copy-vio. Do you have a link to the press release, which would make it easier to sort out the REVDEL? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy and pasted the entire section into Google which brought it up. Didn't save the link, however. oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RFA

I appreciate your trust. Please call on me if I let you down, or if I can be of help. BusterD (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devils team uniform

May I ask why you insist on not displaying the retro uniform as part of the uniform set? It is worn by the team in an official capacity. It was also present in the previous PNG uniform set. Kj1595 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the third jersey, which although retro themed was not the same as the reverse retro, was in the previous set, similar to the third jerseys for the Islanders and other teams. The reverse retro jerseys are a special uniform that all teams used this year, not a team-specific third jersey in rotation, and none of them are displayed with their respective teams' infoboxes. Plus there's the fact that you had it improperly licensed and improperly hosted on Commons. There is a very specific reason that none of the other uniform graphics are on Commons, which is for free use images only, not fair use as these uniform images are inherently. Please understand the licensing requirements before uploading images. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can reupload the illustration again in the local wiki server. The reverse retro currently in use is the one shown in the illustration. Where is the error here? Kj1595 (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other reverse retro jerseys are included as they're not part of the teams' regular jersey rotations, but a special league-mandated program. No, those are not the same thing. The Devils did not have a third jersey this year, probably because the only third jerseys they've ever had were retro ones, and they probably considered it redundant. But that doesn't make the reverse retro appropriate to include there as, again, we haven't included any of them.

Plus, I don't like having the Devils be different from all the other teams. It breaks the consistency. And things like including sticks, which are not part of the uniform (every player chooses their own) also is not ideal. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball classification

Ok so what exactly is the deal with Major League Baseball?? It’s been labeled as an organization on its main page…, but on the major pro sports league page it’s described as the highest level of baseball play in North America. Also on its main article it’s stated as a “league” in the last sentence of the first paragraph; However editors have discouraged describing it as both a league and organization in the first sentence. It needs to be consistent: is it a league or organization composed of two leagues? Or just the highest pro level? It’s confusing Banan14kab (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's all three. Since 2000 it's been constituted as a single league legally speaking, but prior to that it was technically an umbrella organization for the two separate leagues (which separately handled day-to-day operational matters such as assigning umpires) constituted per the "National Agreement" between the leagues (the first version of which was signed in 1903) and overseen by the Commissioner of Baseball. The purpose of the new constitution in 2000 was to streamline redundant operations. Since the article covers the entire history as a formal entity, it was decided to use the word "organization" in the lead, as seen in the talk page archives.

But there is the additional complication that the name originated as a description to contrast the top level leagues with lower-tier minor leagues, not a formal name. Indeed, it didn't really get capitalized consistently until around 1960 give-or-take, and there was no single logo until a special patch was designed in honor of the 100th anniversary of professional baseball in 1969, which was considered such a strong design that it became the full-time logo to this day.

And then there's the fact that in times past there were other leagues that were not part of the formal organization that have been judged to have equaled the AL and NL in level of play, (most recently the formal recognition that the top Negro Leagues were major-league caliber). The distinction between the proper noun for the organization and the adjectival phrase for the level is a fine one, but is valid.

So, yeah, it's a bit confusing. But the way the articles are currently phrased is carefully chosen keeping the above things in mind. oknazevad (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bro..

The V train can be seen on the R179s... so they can be seen on current train cars

I don't doubt that there would be a program for it, but that's not what the sentence is refering to, as the R179s don't have rollsigns. oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pecos League Sourcing

Dear Sir:

From what you have been saying about the sources of the Proposed Teams on the Pecos league Wikipedia being "lies" and "many of these links do not say what is claimed." These links have been soured with a fair amount of searching and digging. Many of the teams mentioned early do not even have articles written in any of the local papers, or the aforementioned papers have since shut down (Del Rio's for instance shut down in 2020). These are the best sources online and in any sort of print that has since been uploaded online from print on these teams. If you can explain with extremely detailed reasons as to why these sources are not allowed, that would be appreciated.

If they're not even mentioned on local papers, then they probably don't meet notability or verifiable th standards. But in term of what you've added, I've found at least three cases where the ref doesn't even mention the team, or if they do the dates are not verifiable. And, no, claiming you spoke to the commissioner does not count, as there is no way for anyone else to verify that you did. Frankly, I don't need the need to include these at all. The nature of the league, with teams coming and going, makes the whole thing trivial. oknazevad (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Does the league news page, which has been used in the past to source articles, not count? Also, for the references can you tell me which ones and I will rectify them. Also, at least in my opinion, the teams do matter towards guiding a picture of how the league prefers to operate and why the towns they select are picked (Many of these towns did have minor league baseball in the past, and at least some people seemed to want it to return) Redowl1438 (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may simply be formatting errors on your part. On many of the league website links, I keep landing on incorrect pages or general things like the league map.

But there is also an issue of the league website for sourcing being, well, rather lousy. Things are changed on the website with zero announcement and no evidence of the previous version being left behind. Like the Sturgeon's name. There were at least three names shown at some point with no formal announcement as to which one would actually windup getting used (personally, I preferred "Martinez Mackerel" for the alliterative quality, but I digress).

But that also speaks to the nature of the league. I admire the fact that it exists, and has lasted so long, but it really is a bit of a make-it-up-as-they-go-along operation, with the number and location of teams changing each year, and with changes to the team lineup and schedule occurring often until a couple of weeks before the season starts. This year alone at least two California teams and White Sands were listed as teams before being ultimately left out. No formal announcement was made, and the reasons were never given. Maybe the league just didn't have the budget to run that many teams this year. After all, besides Allen, all teams are owned and operated by the league office, and they pretty much will look at any sufficient municipal field for a team location. So any future announcement should always be treated as preliminary and subject to change, and any team that never took the field should be regarded as of no consequence whatsoever, as there was no separate organization or entity that ever existed. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will check the links, (maybe they are busted on some end) and try and reformat them as best I can. As for the league being a bit of a pop up, I will agree (White Sands and Ruidoso for sure we're odd first choices for teams.) Let me see what the issues are and I'll get them fixed. Redowl1438 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Do NOT copy/paste the original draft Draft:The Addams Family 2 onto the redirect at The Addams Family. @Robert McClenon: and I have deemed the page as not containing enough facets about the film's creative background and development, beyond the routine writing/casting/production details, which causes Draft:The Addams Family 2 to fail the WP:GNG at this point. This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Editing and revising the notability requirements. Please respect our consensus. If you plan to reject this, please reply and discuss notability for future films. Cardei012597 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will submit the original draft. Do NOT edit at the redirect until the draft is accepted to move to the mainspace. This may take some time, please be patient. Cardei012597 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovineboy2008:, @Masem:, and @Facu-el Millo: I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter, as you all participated in the Notability discussion (linked above). Cardei012597 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have four-fold issue with your position.

Firstly, while there was some discussion of changing the NFF guideline, the actual guideline as currently written still covers the film. We should follow the current guidelines, not what we wish they were. Secondly, the opinions of two editors are not definitive, and consensus requires more than just a couple of people "deeming" something to be so. Thirdly, the GNG still trumps any project-specific supplemental guideline.

Fourthly, the idea that a film that is less than two months away from wide release and has been significantly covered in reliable sources is not notable because of the state of the draft is daft. Notability is a property of the subject of an article, not the article itself, and does not depend on the current state of an article, as noted hundreds of thousands of times at AFD over the almost two decades of Wikipedia history. Yes, the draft is a start class article at best. No, that does not mean the subject is not notable. I think it would behoove you and Robert to keep the same principles as WP:BEFORE in mind. And don't bother saying that's about deletion. I know it is. The point is to follow the spirit of it, that notability of a subject is not based on the current state of the article and one should at least take a cursory glance at outside the article to establish notability.

Plus, let's be honest, the best way to get eyeballs on the article to improve it from its current start class state is to have it in mainspace so people can find it. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Animated films can technically be in production all the way up to release -- but as noted, a theatrical film slated for release 2 months from now better have started its production already. Given that I see news about its trailer about a month ago (which can only come out from production), I think the spirit of NFF is satisfied with those sources. And as it being given a theatrical release, there is nearly assurance there will be reviews in time. We may be missing production details but I don't see anything in my searching. --Masem (t) 04:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the draft should NOT be tossed aside, its history thrown away like its nothing. The idea of a redirect from a draft is that it is a placeholder for the draft to eventually be accepted and moved to the mainspace. What you did was completely wrong, copying and moving the content of the draft, onto its redirect. When the draft is deemed notable and ready to move, the redirect will be deleted immediately to make way for the draft's move to the mainspace. This is how it is done. Drafts are not wasted and trashed for the purposes of fast-tracking a mainspace article. Do NOT edit or alter the redirect, until this matter is solved. We should also wait for the pinged editors to comment here before any action is considered. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy anything. I literally just reverted the redirect to a previous separate article state. The fact that a draft existed was not obvious or clear. I know how moves from draft space work. I've been here since 2004. oknazevad (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Comments

First, the notability guideline for films that are in production is poorly written and has been often misinterpreted for years. I think that my interpretation, which is that films that are awaiting release are seldom notable until they are released, is the correct interpretation of the words as they are written. I am no longer optimistic that there will be a clarification of the guideline in this decade. I don't know why good-faith editors are sometimes in so much of a hurry to get an article accepted about a film (or an album) before it is released. I do know why bad-faith editors are in a hurry to get an article accepted, and that is that they are promoting the film or album. I would prefer that we good-faith editors not encourage them. Other than that, some studios, directors, stars, and bands have ultras, fanatical fans. They are good-faith editors, but they are unintentionally disruptive.

Editors who think that we should give more coverage to future films should, first, consider how much that will encourage paid editors and flacks, and, second, change the guideline (or don't change it). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation that films aren't notable until released is not one I have ever seen in my years of editing film articles. Ever. Indeed, I would definitely say that it is not what the guideline says at all, and does not hold any sort of consensus on Wikipedia as a whole. To put it bluntly, you're wrong. The guideline is pretty clear that start of principal photography is the line chosen. Now, for animation that doesn't really exist, so judgement must be used, but I fail to see how any film that has had a full final trailer released can be considered non-notable unless one follows your incorrect interpretation of the guideline. I believe you need to ask yourself if the reason that no "clarification" of the guideline has occurred is because what you're really proposing is a major change to it, one that has no consensus.

I think your concern over paid editing is in good faith, but the underlying assumption that regular editors wouldn't have an interest in covering upcoming films or that they're inherently non-notable before release does not hold up when one looks at the underlying idea that notability is determined by how much coverage something receives in third-party sources. Upcoming films are very much a subject of media coverage, and perfectly valid subjects for articles. oknazevad (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, going by Masem's reply, if we do decide on moving the draft, we should all be rather confident that the release date of The Addams Family 2 will not be postponed. There have been recent news articles about some films releases being delayed, due to the Delta variant. There is that legit concern that The Addams Family 2 may not release by October 1st. If we do move the draft, then later the film is delayed due to COVID (maybe into 2022), then Masem's thought of "nearly assurance there will be reviews in time" would be potentially inaccurate. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's delayed that's a fact of the production cycle that can be added to the article. It does not in any way alter the notability of the film. oknazevad (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to anyone accepting my submission of the draft article, deleting the redirect, and moving the draft to the mainspace. I do not have the Wikipedia permissions to do this act. The most important aspect though is deleting the redirect before the draft is moved to the mainspace. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: if you want to move my draft to the mainspace, accept my submission, I will support that decision. The draft is highly likely to gain more notability once its moved to the mainspace. I do not have the Wikipedia rights to delete the redirect, to make way for the move, so that is why I ask you for help with this. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the draft to The Addams Family 2 (film) and changed the page at The Addams Family 2 into a disambiguation page, since both Addams Family Values and The Addams Family 2 (film) are both known as that title. Happy editing! Cardei012597 (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being that Addams Family Values is not actually named that, you just managed to give the new article an inappropriate title with unnecessary disambiguation, as it's the only film by that actual name and Addams Family Values is already naturally disambiguate. It also doesn't really disambiguate anyway, as Addams Family Values is also a film. And this doesn't address the Addams Family 2 redirect, either. In other words, in your impatience (being that the last three comments on this thread have all been from you trying to get the draft moved), you made a mess. Please open a proper technical move request to eliminate the unneeded disambiguator, overwriting the disambiguation page, retarget the Addams Family 2 redirect to the new article, and include a hatnote to Addams Family Values (and vice versa) per WP:TWODABS. oknazevad (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pepsi Real Sugar can.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pepsi Real Sugar can.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Railway

"Manhattan Railway" is the title of the system as seen in The Official Railway Guide, July 1902, page 59. Cards84664 03:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The official guides from that era routinely omit "Company" and similar from railroad names; notice that the only ones to include them are connecting steamship companies and similar, while railroads leave it off. Plus every other source routinely just calls them the Manhattan Els. If anything, the link should be amended to read that. oknazevad (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why that's an issue. How often do we say "Pennsylvania Railroad Company"? Cards84664 22:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, but that's because the company's system was actually called the Pennsylvania Railrad as a common name. The Manhattan els, however, were not called the Manhattan Railway in general use. People would say they were taking the Pennsylvania Railroad to their destination (or just as likely the nickname "the Pennsy" or the abbreviated PRR), but New Yorkers didn't say they were taking the Manhattan Railway uptown. So it's not a common or accurate term. oknazevad (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that would only make sense if there's both a Manhattan Railway Corporation and a Manhattan Railway Company. In common use it just becomes unneeded disambiguation. Cards84664 01:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that people did not refer to the El system as the Manhattan Railway as its system name. It was always referred to as simply the El, or by line. Trying to use it as a system name is ahistorical and incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, "People said" is not a reliable source. Just because a bunch of people say Pennsy does not automatically mean we say "Pennsy Railroad" either. If we want to include "Company" in all railroad templates consistently, there needs to be consensus for that.Cards84664 03:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, I think you're focusing on the wrong thing and missing my point. There's a difference between the name of the system and the name of the company. The company was the Manhattan Railway Company (itself created by the consolidation of the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and the New York Elevated Railway Company, and later a subsidiary of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company for most of its existence). But the parameter is for the system name, and the system was not called the Manhattan Railway. It was called the Manhattan Elevated. I'd much rather change to that, to be frank. oknazevad (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Manhattan Elevated does make sense for that field. Cards84664 12:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR

Do you have any sourced to support your claim? WWE lists Big E as part of SmackDown, so unless there is a reliable source stating that Big E moves to RAW, your edit is WP:OR --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Big E's tweets stating he was going to Raw to cash in constitute a roster change. oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TWEET. WWE.com list him as part of SmackDown. No announcement by WWE or any Reliable sources. Stills unsourced --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He showed up on Raw and won its top title. WWE.com is very slow to update, you know that. It's been pointed out many times that they don't fix the roster section for days afterwards. The only OR here is you insisting that the WWE Championship is now on SmackDown. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source about Big E being drafted. So, it's an information with no verification, just WP:OR. If there is no RS, no place on Wikipedia. I click in the source 109 and says it's part of SmackDown, not Raw. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now it says Raw. Which was obvious. Seriously, I know that there's an issue with people jumping the gun on things around stuff like this (we really do need to follow WP:NODEADLINE more closely and not try to make changes the second they happen on live TV), but to ignore the obvious because of a slow update to a webpage is silly. oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

The reason the section is so large is that 3rd edition is radically different from the other editions. There are items in it that are unique and need inclusion and explanation. They don't happen in the other editions or any other game system. Other elements (like the dice mechanics) are similar to the FFG roleplaying games that came after it (like Star Wars and Genesys). The article needs to explain how the game is different and to do that, you need to break down the game's mechanics.

This isn't a step-by-step guide to making a character or running a campaign. It is a description of major parts of the game's system. I still think it needs more work. The 1st, 2nd and 4th edition sections should reflect how the core game has evolved over time and the current content reflects that. The third edition section needs to show how and why it is totally different from the core WFRP system.Hotspur23 (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need to break down the game mechanics in such detail to note that it's radically different, just state plainly that it's different and give the major things like that it uses pools of custom dice. The level of detail is simply too much, totally trivial, and crosses the line into making the article worse. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE isn't just about whether the article can be used in place of the game books, but also about whether it repeats details only found in the game books and nowhere else. Frankly, the article was better before you started editing it. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar

Seriously, stop. Until consensus is find, the last good version remains. As I told you, I'm open to ask other users, no pro wrestling users. I don't wanna bring this to AN/I, since at the end, all of three would be punished. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Sorry for everything. I would leave Wikipedia right now[reply]

Popeye DVD articles

Dear Oknazevad

Recently you have taken it upon yourself to remove articles relating to the various the Popeye the Sailor DVD sets. Saying “This is not a fan wiki- this is not the place for this sort of collector trivia.” I respectfully disagree- there are multiple other articles on Wikipedia that give detailed listings of Golden Age cartoon DVD/Blu-Ray sets such as the articles regarding Walt Disney Treasures and Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Considering the Popeye cartoons are a very important part of animation history- these articles would help both hardcore animation fans and casual viewers a like in determining what’s included in the collection, the quantity of bonus features and weather or not it’s a set they would be interested in purchasing. The articles regarding the older Black and White sets have been around for decades and I see no harm in them still being available to readers. I do agree however that the recent Popeye: The 1940s Blu-Rays didn’t need three entire articles dedicated to each volume and are more than happy to create a single article detailing all three volumes.

Perhaps together we can create articles regarding these sets that can satisfies everyone :) Luxoman237 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me establish that your entire rationale of "whether or not it's a set they would be interested in purchasing" is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not a buyers guide. Period.

For a separate article to exist there must be evidence that the sets themselves—not the cartoons they contain, but the sets—are independently notable. Otherwise they're better covered as part of the general series article. Since the sets are entirely chronological, knowing which cartoons are on which sets is easily determined when looking at the filmography article, which lists the cartoons in chronological order. We don't need a separate article to know which cartoons are in which sets. And special features can be (briefly) mentioned in the home video section of the main article. As for whether other articles exist, many of those are questionable independent notability and that is not a good argument. At least in those cases there's the fact that the sets aren't straight chronological collections of every cartoon, so some discussion of which cartoons were chosen and why can be included so long as reliable sources discuss it, which itself helps speak to notability. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy clam chowder

Hello Oknazevad: Will not disagree with your edit to revert as I think this is the wrong topic for this image. However, I do disagree with your assertion that this is a made-up derivative. There are all kinds of toppings added to cream-based New England clam chowder but “fluffy clam chowder” is a real and very delicious derivative found along the coast of Maine where seafood of all different kinds is readily available. Just google “fluffy clam chowder” and several recipes and descriptions will pop up. Sometimes you will see a similar fluffy version of seafood chowder. A source that makes it this way and which is referenced in my image description is the Rye Harbor Lobster Pound in Rye, New Hampshire USA. Sorry, the image is documentary in nature – it was done on location rather than under studio conditions. Best, Gordon (User:GRDN711)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts template

You have had a problem with two of my edits intended to make the martial arts template a little more concise and easier to read. If you consider yourself the authority on the page, then i, and presumably others, would appreciate if you would clean it up. Jellybean987 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I don't think it needs cleaning up, which is why I haven't made any such edits. I explained fully my rationales for the reverts in my edit summaries. If you disagree with either of those rationales, take it to the template talk page. "Cleaning up" something that is not messy is a waste of time. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One issue i feel is wrong with the page is that there is an obscure striking martial art Bando on the template. If that obscure martial art is on the template, why not another obscure striking martial art like Dambe? Jellybean987 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion for inclusion is if the article is rated C-class or better, a criterion chosen to avoid having the template bloated with start-class articles written for promoting systems of questionable notability. If there's a C-class article that is omitted it can and should be added. oknazevad (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dambe is class C. If you don't want to condense, then i would appreciate your help making it less arbitrary and more inclusive. Jellybean987 (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it. I won't object to the addition of any article that fits the criterion that was decided by consensus.

Now, that said, because of the age of that consensus (it indeed has been a few years since that discussion), perhaps it is time to revisit it to prevent re-bloat. I'm not sure what other way to have an objective inclusion criteria could be, though. oknazevad (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put some work in to add the class C articles, but if you or others wanted to trim it to class B and above, i don't anyone would mind as long as the standard applies to the entire template. Jellybean987 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the best at this point, though I do have the concern that important base concepts might be left out because the articles aren't up to B-class (yet). I know that the article for punch for example needed some work before it passed the C-class muster, and a template on the martial arts that omitted that would be utterly inadequate. Let's see what else C-class can be dug up before deciding if it's time to make the criteria more stringent. oknazevad (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fair point Jellybean987 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon

If you don't think that is the right place for historical data, where do you suggest? Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be later in the section, better integrated into the flow. Just dropping it in first like that gives it undue weight and no context. Plus I'd also like some additional verification. It's such an implausible figure (99%? Really?) that I question its validity. No source is perfect and without the surrounding context of the source it is unclear what they mean. 99% of all bacon, or just 99% of bacon in the UK? oknazevad (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otter seems to be a leading historian of the food industry. His book is heavily annotated, and this is referenced to "The Planning of Britain's Food Imports", Murray and Cohen, 1934 [1] He says this was really the beginning of international trade in bacon - that is why it is significant. Rathfelder (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:American Basketball Association (shield).gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Basketball Association (shield).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]