Jump to content

Talk:David Lipsky (golfer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag

[edit]

I notice that three editors have inserted the country flag, and one editor has deleted it more than once (without tp discussion). I support inclusion of the flag for golf infobox articles. It reflects real-world usage and common sense. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is inconsistent with the current project-wide consensus on the issue of flags in infoboxes. As you are aware, there is currently a proposal to change the relevant section of the MOS, but until that is achieved the current MOS should be followed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant MOS states: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." I believe this is such a common sense exception. As a matter of common sense, as well as for the reasons that the official sports urls use flags in golf, for example here; a sport where we already typically reflect such flags in infoboxes as a matter of consensus practice and common sense.
You are also editing against not only me, but the three other editors you have reverted. Please don't engage in a slow-moving edit war against all four of the other editors on this article.
I'm especially troubled that you made a series of reverts against three other editors without even bringing the issue to this talk page -- something I had to step in and do. Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that; no thank you for reverting claiming "common sense", when a common-sense reading of MOS does not support your edit. MOS explicitly excludes flag icons from sportspeople, even where they represent a particular nation; it further is designed to be a Wikipedia-specific house style rather than to reflect practices adopted elsewhere. Finally, MOS represents the current project-wide consensus on issues of style, so until such time that it changes, its exclusion overrides your desire for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant MOS explicitly, before we even get to any of the language at issue, reflecting the current project-wide consensus, states prominently: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Your comment refuses to afford any meaning to the "it will have occasional exceptions" language. That doesn't make sense.
Further, and you have not addressed this, I have the edit warring/failure to use talkpage concerns expressed here. Maybe, just maybe, the common sense areas where we see exceptions are where you are the lone !vote seeing things your way, and all four other editors see it the other way, and maybe a good way forward on those is (rather than to revert all the others) to initiate talk page discussion. Epeefleche (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what doesn't make sense is your argument that this should be an exception, given that MOS specifically addresses it as not being one. In the absence of a strong argument as to why "common sense" would be to do exactly what the MOS says not to do, and given that efforts to change guidelines to support your proposed viewpoint have thus far been unsuccessful, number of reverters here is irrelevant: exclusion is the default, inclusion (exception to the MOS) requires consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? MOS says, in effect, "below is a specific rule that will have occasional exceptions." For you to say ... "but look, it's a rule," leave me saying " ... Yeeeeees ... one that will have an occasional exception. Nikki -- let me introduce you to the exception." Clue at this article: the consensus input on this page and at the associated article (all those editors you are reverting). Additional strong argument: posted above. What part of "this rule will have exceptions" is unclear to you? What part of "all the other four editors editing this page have edited in consensus in accordance with that exception, and it's better for you not to just revert four editors in a row but to initiate talk page discussion instead" do you find yourself unable to buy into?
BTW, as a counter-example, one area that seems to use flags a great deal which I don't see the rationale for is certain mall articles, such as this one with three different flags. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clue: consensus is based on discussion, not on number of people reverting. As already explained, rules can have exceptions, but you need to get actual consensus that this should be one. You haven't done that. Failing to read what is written doesn't change that.
So to review: MOS says that sportspeople articles, even where there is a nationality, shouldn't use flags in the infobox. There has been discussion at MOS talk related to sportspeople biographies, including golfers, but attempts to change the rule have not yet been successful. You propose that the use of a flag here is "common sense", but don't substantiate that. You also say other places include flags, to which I responded that we have our own house style that doesn't necessarily align with what other places do. The rest of your posts are based on either behaviour (which is not relevant to the merits of the formatting issue) or a failure to address what has actually been said. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS screams out: "Nikki -- read this, it is the first thing I say ... this MOS will have occasional exceptions. Use common sense in applying it."
Where might we find those exceptions? Clue 2: They won't be in the MOS itself -- that, we know, because they are exceptions to what is in the MOS. (That was too easy).
Where might we find those exceptions, then? Oh, in editors using common sense.
And what is common sense? One thing we know about it is, in the applicable case it is something driving an exception not reflected in the MOS.
So here, all four other editors disagree with you. And at the infoboxes throughout the Project, we have a multitude of examples of editors having edited in accord with the consensus on this page. And I've also pointed to the what the sports primary RSs do (and yes, we often look to what the RSs do, for everything from determining "what is notable" to determining "what is the common name of the article topic").
In short -- we don't need to have revised MOS to have an exception. And we know that because the MOS SCREAMS that at us. In its very first words.
Your approach is: no exceptions from the MOS, or maybe if one is allowed it has to be one that I Nikki-the-approver has approved, whatever all the other editors here and at golf articles on the project say. That's not right. Epeefleche (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is common sense? What is right? Reading what is actually said would be a good start on both. You don't have consensus here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument. And we don't rely on external sources for style matters, because that's why we created our own style manual in the first place. Now, do you have any actual reason why you think including the flag benefits the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense is what the consensus determines to be common sense. Common sense leading to an exception is something more than the thinking that went into the rule being excepted from. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a wonderful argument (even if it is an essay, and even if it refers to article creation and deletion -- as long as it is not a sole argument (as it states: "these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."). I think on this page where all the editors disagree with you, there is consensus at this point. I think you erred in not initiating tp discussion, but in engaging in reverts of (four?) editors instead. We certainly look to other styles (and style guides) for informed guidance as we create our own style guide -- we've done that for years and years. Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Lipsky (golfer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Lipsky (golfer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Lipsky_(golfer)&oldid=1204768202"