User talk:SounderBruce

This is SounderBruce's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45: 31 days

ITN recognition for Sinking of Hableány

On 31 May 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sinking of Hableány, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Step hen 02:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in an edit war

Hello there. You left a note on my talk page. My practice is not to involve myself in edit wars. Making two reversions is not an edit war. Please think carefully before making similar comments. Springnuts (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: Two reverts of the same content without any explanation or attempt at dispute resolution is the very definition of an edit war. WP:3RR applies, of course. Sounder Bruce 22:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a carefully worded edit summary of the second and final revert. You were heavy-handed. Springnuts (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

… Another time why not leave a friendly note on a fellow editor’s talk page instead of the full “you are in an edit war” message? With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: You still haven't given a proper explanation as to why you consider "collided with", a basic term used on almost all news coverage of the incident, is a problematic phrase in terms of POV. We have talk pages for a reason. Sounder Bruce 06:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you ask, generally to collide with something implies that there is some movement towards the thing collided with. So, a parked car cannot collide with anything. But I’ve parked car can be involved in a collision. In this case it is far from clear that the smaller vessel was moving towards the larger one. So being “in collision with” makes no assumptions about the positions, speed or possible fault of either vessel. Collision here is a verb, not a noun, however “in a collision with” would also be grammatically correct. But it is not a biggie, which is why, after to revert, I left the issue alone. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Apologies for double post. And typos, I’m dictating into the phone) Springnuts (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Springnuts: Your use of "in collision with" is still highly incorrect. The phrase "the ship was traveling on the Danube [...] when it was in collision with a much larger ship" just doesn't sound natural, whereas "when a much larger ship, the Viking Sigyn, collided with the Hableány" sounds correct. The only way to make "in collision with" work there is to add an article: "when it was in a collision with", but it is still clunky. This was not about POV at all, but about basic sentence structure. Sounder Bruce 17:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well, “when a much larger ship, the Viking Sigyn, collided with the Hableán” works for me, But I make a practice of not making further edits in this sort of situation. So please go ahead and make the change if you feel it is better than what is there at the moment. Springnuts (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you, or another editor, has now changed the article in the way we discussed above. If it was you, then well done. Springnuts (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi, I currently have Fred Keenor at peer review with an eye to taking a run at FA. This is the second peer review I have listed but neither have garnered any responses yet. I was wondering if you would be able to have a look if you have the time. Feel free to skim and make it as light as you like, I'm happy to iron out any real issues at FA but it would be nice to know I'm not missing anything stupidly obvious. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: I'll try and take a look at it while on my trip, though I may have to save my comments for a week or so. Thanks for reviewing the 1999 World Cup, which is now in the FAC queue. Sounder Bruce 06:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, no rush. Have a nice trip! Kosack (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWC 1999

Hi Bruce - Sorry I meant to get back to you re the peer review and to thank you for the podcast link. A v. interesting series (Anson Dorrance has a great voice - I could listen to him all day). I have a vague memory that a joint male/female World Cup was mooted at one stage – but that the 99ers torpedoed it. I can't find where I might have read it though - probably in one of Jean Williams' offerings. If I can source it in a way that's directly relevant to '99 I might try to add it later. I also wondered if you thought the draw/World X1 fixture would be worthy of a stand alone article? As you'd have a better idea of the coverage I'd be interested if you thought we'd have a reasonable prospect of defending an AfD? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Listening to the podcast while reading some of the same quotes in The National Team has been a pretty fun experience so far (and is fueling a desire to rewrite the USWNT article soon). I hadn't heard of the double-header proposal, but I'd imagine it would have been considered before the first tournament in 1991...I'll try and see if it shows up in any of the sources I have available. I don't think that the draw could survive as a standalone article, though that section in the article could be expanded with more detail if necessary (or the friendly could be moved to a separate article on the World Stars). Sounder Bruce 17:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Eastern Railroad

Any clue what happened to the Washington Eastern Railroad page? When I type it in it redirects me to the Eastern Washington Gateway Railroad. They are two completely different railroads that existed at two separate times owned by two different company’s. Did it get deleted or what. I managed to see that the last edit was by you so I figured you’d know. Eìre 1916 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2019 UEFA Champions League Final

On 4 June 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 UEFA Champions League Final, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Yogwi21 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Talk:List of national memorials of the United States#redlink: please do fix the situation!!! :) --03:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Marta Award

		The Marta Award
		As a recipient of the Marta Award, we'd like to thank you for scoring Marta-like goals related to WP:WOSO. Thank you for your talents and dedication!

Hmlarson (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final

The article 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup Final for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final

The article 2019 AFC Asian Cup Final you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup Final for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1999 FIFA Women's World Cup

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA process.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lynnwood and Marysville

Hi why did you reverted in Lynnwood and Marysville? New number of population in 2018 Estimate from U.S. Census Bureau. 38,511 population in Lynnwood. 69,779 population in Marysville. Thank. --Rossdegenstein (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rossdegenstein: You keep changing the formatting in other sections, particularly after the headings. Also, the growth rate for Marysville is not calculated correctly and must be cited from a pre-calculated source (like a newspaper, as it originally was). The crime rates infobox in Lynnwood must match the prose as well, so if you don't update that then please don't bother; sometimes it's best to not update on a yearly basis, as some cities experience very little to no population growth. Sounder Bruce 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2019 Reminder

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 3 of this year's WikiCup! There are just over 2 weeks until the third round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

Sound Transit s-line template replacement

Hi Bruce, I've developed an {{Adjacent stations}} module for Sound Transit which combines the existing three s-line template groups (Sounder, Link Light Rail, and ST Express) into a single module: Module:Adjacent stations/Sound Transit. I've added a couple sample usages so you can see how it would differ in presentation from the current templates. I'd appreciate any feedback that you might have. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Looks good so far, but I do think we need to differentiate between modes and services, and also keep the bold headings for Future/Former services. How flexible would the module be for other parameters? Sounder Bruce 01:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About My Edit on the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup Page

Hi Bruce,

I noticed that you have reverted the edit I made on the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup page. I realize you were trying to help and, because of that, want to thank you for that. I just wanted to write this to explain my thinking in regards to the edit I made to help you understand my perspective. The first thing I want to bring up is that I've seen similar kinds of added detail in other lead sections of Wikipedia articles. For example, in the lead section of the men's 1982 FIFA World Cup, when bringing up the largest margin of victory achieved in tournament history in Hungary's 10-1 over El Salvador, the lead section brings up the other two margins of victory that matched it, the teams involved in each, the exact scores, and even the years they took place. Other examples of this type of added detail in lead sections can be found in the lead sections of articles like the 2007 UEFA Champions League final (discussing the last meeting in a final between AC Milan and Liverpool, including the scoreline and outcome of said previous final meeting), Lothar Matthaus (discussing Mexico's Rafael Marquez equaling his record of number of World Cups played in 2018, even mentioning the 2018 match that caused this to happen officially), among other examples. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that I felt that the sentence I edited felt incomplete given that it only ended with "until 2019" without any idea of what happened in 2019 to make this record no longer stand. As such, I felt the sentence would benefit from adding a bit more detail to let readers know a bit (not too much) more about what happened in 2019 to make the margin of victory record achieved in the 2007 World Cup no longer stand. I don't think that adding this detail detracts from the article or leading section in any way, but only enriches the article (even if in a small way) given the context it provides in terms of the record being broken.

With that said, out of respect for you, I will not do anything in regards to this specific edit of mine unless I have your permission. I will leave your reversion of my edit as is until then. As I said earlier, I just wanted to explain what I was thinking when I made my edit. I hope you can reconsider my edit, but if you still disagree with my edit, that's fine. I just wanted to get my viewpoint out there.

Thank you and have a wonderful day,

Wildboy7

--Wildboy7 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wildboy7, that level of detail is not appropriate for a WP:LEAD, which should be written in summary style. It belongs in the group sub-page or sub-section, depending on what direction the article evolves in, but we should certainly not be including the scores of the 2019 match in the 2007 lead. A mention of the record being broken in 2019 is enough context for the lead. Sounder Bruce 02:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Sorry about that. Reading the article you linked to me on the leading sections on Wikipedia articles, I have a better understanding on what you're talking about now. Thank you for your help. I'll take your advice into consideration when I'm editing this type articles in the future.

Thank you and have a wonderful day,

Wildboy7

--Wildboy7 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]