User talk:Backburner001

Discussion Conventions

Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Please be aware that I like to centralize my discussions with other editors in one location. I will usually continue discussion on the talk page where contact was first initiated. If contact was first initiated on this page, I will leave a note on your talk page indicating when I reply here. If contact was first initiated on your talk page and you reply here, I will continue the discussion here. Also, be aware that I will revert the deletion of any comments left on this page. Consider your comments carefully before you post them.

Archived Commnets: Archive01 | Archive02
Editor Review: Wikipedia:Editor review/Backburner001

Start a new talk topic.

Akron Aeros

Not a problem about the citations. I have no problem with listing off where this info came from. However, things like the history of the franchise were taken from writeups on the team's own website, which is already listed down in the External Links section. Putting the same site there again under a "reference" section seems a little redundant. I never actually copy any data verbatim, which is why I don't have a direct reference, I tend to just glean the important details and make up my own paragraphs.

Also, things like the records for each season, and which teams were in the playoffs, are undisputed and are widely available from many sources. I'm not sure what type of citation, if any, would be needed for that.

For whatever it's worth, on this particular page, a couple of us in WikiProject Baseball have tried to get the "current roster" removed and replaced with a link to the team's page. The same couple users seem to insist on changing the page manually every two or three days when they make a player move, which is not the idea. So if you can be of any help with that....

I've done quite a number of the other teams in the Eastern League in a similar format, so if you'd like to browse the others and see what else you think needs cited, I wouldn't mind. Let me know. Dakern74 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. It seems like a number of editors opt to accept the External Links section as a method of citation, but I'm a bit weary. I don't know if there has been any discussion on this, but I would much rather see a source removed from External Links and added to a Reference section if indeed the source was used in the article. It makes the use of the reference explicit, whereas listing a source in External Links does not necessarily tell the reader that the source was used in the article.

I'm also not sure what kind of citation would be needed for undisputed content, except to say that I would be inclined to cite the source that is considered the most reliable and is the most up to date. I see no harm in sourcing undisputed content since it is the citation itself that will let unfamiliar readers know that the content is not disputed.

Can you provide a link to the discussion about the link to the current roster? I'll try to be of help in that area and with other articles as time permits. -- backburner001 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's another person named User:Win777 who was involved in that. You can check his talk page. I kinda gave up the fight since I'm not an admin or anything. But if you look at the history, they do add/remove new players about every two days. As for the "factual" things like records, some of the teams have it on their own sites, but I also have the media guides for my two local teams in Connecticut. And they have pages back through the years where they list off the final standings for the whole league. So it seems odd to cite another team's media guide in an article about what this team did 10 years ago.

What about a dual label for the section, like "external links / references"?... some of this (playoffs) also comes from the league website, and that could have some interest to followers of the team also. Dakern74 15:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've viewed to discussion on Win777's talk page, deleted the roster in the article, and left a comment on the Aeros talk page. I agree that the roster doesn't belong in the article. Hopefully, this will help either keep the roster off the article or at least jumpstart discussion about it if it gets added back.

I agree; citing references from another team's media guide does look somewhat awkward. However, I am inclined to still favor it for the purpose of demonstrating that the article is sourced. However, I certainly don't think it would be a bad idea to see if those stats can be cited from less-awkward looking source.

I'm not sure if there is consensus on Wikipedia about dual labels for one "External links/References" section. I do think some articles use it, but I don't know if there has been any discussion on the practice. I'm inclined to prefer two seperate sections as they lend themselves to different uses and are clearer when viewed seperately. But that's more of a stylistic preference on my part. The most important thing right now is making sure the article is sourced appropriately. -- backburner001 14:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The roster is back. Incidentally, if you look at the history, we tried at one time to leave a link to the team's own roster page, but that didn't work either. Dakern74 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. Until the editors who keep adding it back actually talk to us, the roster goes. It's as simple as that. -- backburner001 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. I have not checked lately, but I think there are a couple other teams (Binghamton Mets comes to mind) that have the same "problem". If you'd like to help take on those editors as well, let me know. Dakern74 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to bring this issue up in other articles too. If you find any articles of particular interest, please let me know here and I'll take a look. -- backburner001 13:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with current rosters? As long as its kept up-to-date, which it has been, I think it should be allowed. What's the difference between updating roster and people updating things like team standings and stats everyday? What's wrong with a baseball team's page having info on the players that play the game? Andouble, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied to the same comment on the Akron Aeros talk page. -- backburner001 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatius Alma Mater

I replaced because many high school articles have theirs as a bit of pride-the songs, I understand and even agree with the removal-the alma mater, no. If you want to do that, I suggest that you start removing every alma mater from every article for the sake of consistency.-Hornandsoccer 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's consistency you are worried about, I think you should note that I also removed the fight song and alma mater from the article of St. Ignatius' chief rival, St. Edward High School (Lakewood, Ohio). I'm not just picking on St. Ignatius. -- backburner001 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Said fact had been noted, but take St. Xavier High School (Hamilton County, Ohio) for example-its fight song and alma mater remain-I still don't understand why the alma maters can't remain.-Hornandsoccer 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I deleted the alma mater from those two high school articles, I cited a sub-section of WP:NOT|WP:NOT as my rationale for the deletion. There is no specific point that prohibits the deletion of school songs, but I think deleting the alma maters adheres to the spirit of not creating an indiscriminate collection of information. Every high school has an alma mater and just having one does not make a high school notable. It would be different, of course, if the school's alma mater had some notable history or controversy behind it that would easily identify its notability to the school (ex: a controversy over the wording of the song, etc). But, even then, it seems highly doubtful that adding the lyrics of the song would be appropriate. I would instead focus the article on the history or controversy itself instead of the lyrics.

Yes, other school articles may still have the lyrics to their alma maters. But that hardly justifies keeping it. I highly doubt you would allow blatant vandalism to remain in one article just because you've found it unaddressed in another. Why should we treat this any differently? -- backburner001 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that if you delete the alma mater from one article, you may as well go about deleting them all for consistency.-Hornandsoccer 17:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that is what you are saying. I addressed issues of consistency in my replies above (which you seem to have missed). Anyway, I've decided to seek some input on this matter on this talk page before moving forward with deleting lyrics from other high school articles. -- backburner001 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this topic hasn't been discussed in a while, but I would to revive it for just a minute. In response, after having spent more time on Wikipedia, is that there actually is an interesting story with the alma mater. An Ignatius grad, Jack T. Hearns '37 wrote the alma mater when he was band director (mid 1950's, I think), but Xavier copied it. I'm still working on citing that, but I think that fits your qualifications to keep it. In retrospect, I apologize for being harsh with the whole 'delete 'em everywhere' attitude. Hornandsoccer ^Talk 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted and appreciated. You really weren't that harsh.

It appears that the WP:NOT has been updated since we last had this discussion. Refer to #8, which states the following:

"Most song lyrics are protected by copyright. Exceptions include traditional songs whose lyrics are in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source text generally belongs on WikiSource."

I would say, do not post the entire alma mater. However, with cited material, mentioning information about it's authorship, etc, should be okay. -- backburner001 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking your pulse

Backburner! Long time, no edit. Real-life busy? Laters --erikssond/rxnd ( t | € | c ) 19:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]