Talk:Toronto Croatia

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Toronto Croatia Logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Toronto Croatia Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018 copy edit[edit]

Nice article, just a few notes:

  • I understand that editors tried to state things in an interesting way, but encyclopedic tone should be neutral and succinct. Let the facts speak for themselves.
  • It'd be great if someone could find more reliable secondary sources. The primary sources (the club and various league websites) may be a little biased/promotional, and secondary sources also demonstrate notability.
  • I noticed that some of the linked articles call the team "Mississauga Croatia". If the team was known by this name at some period, should it get more-prominent mention in this article? (Such as a brief inclusion of the alternative or former name in the lead?) I created a redirect for Mississauga Croatia → Toronto Croatia.
  • The copy edit tag had listed "excessive detail" but I didn't find this to be a problem. I'm not a football fan but I found the article interesting and engaging. I made the prose more concise so hopefully it doesn't seem as drawn-out.
  • The last two, short paragraphs (from 2016) were a bit confusing to me, maybe they could be clarified or a translation given.

If you have any questions or comments, please add them below and {{ping|Reidgreg}}. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces in dates[edit]

This is a comment which had been posted on Walter Görlitz's talk page:

In your recent edit to Toronto Croatia, you removed the non-breaking spaces I had put in dates as part of my copy edit. While it's true that MOS:DATEFORMAT doesn't explicitly advocate for these non-breaking spaces, it certainly doesn't advise against them, and near the top of that MOS sub-page it states Not all situations in which hard spaces or {{nowrap}} may be appropriate are described. At MOS:NBSP (part of the main MOS page), you will notice the example May{{nbsp}}2014. That's for a month-year and I would argue that it's even more important to keep a day-month combination from line wrapping. It is also consistent with the many various number-unit pairings. I'll also mention it is a practice at the Guild of Copy Editors to put in these non-breaking spaces which are well-received for good and featured articles. I'd be interested to know any reasons you have for wanting to allow a line break in the middle of a date. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This was reverted (ie: erased) from the user talk page with the edit summary:

You added them agains various manuals of style and I intentionally ran a script that I knew would apply date manuals of style to the article. Don't do that. (TW)

@Walter Görlitz: even if you are running a script, you are still responsible for your edits. I've read the MOS section you quoted (MOS:DATEFORMAT) and it does not support your argument to remove the non-breaking spaces. I have noted MOS sections and WikiProject practices in favour of non-breaking spaces with dates. Reverting my post to your talk page is a failure to discuss. Therefore I am reverting your edit to this article and restoring the non-breaking spaces. I invite discussion regarding the edit to this article. If edits of this sort are being advised by a script, I strongly advocate that the script be updated in compliance with MOS and described practices. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am responsible for my edit. I ran the script because I knew they would quickly remove the unnecessary formatting. Reverting your complaint on my talk page is recognition that I read it and clear comment when removing it that your formatting was unnecessary. This is not a requirement and it's not needed. I reiterate: don't do that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove that the lines will break and that the result will be confusing or awkward? It has not been a problem to date, so MOS:NBSP has not been met.
As for the cabal of copy editors, where is the policy or guideline that using more non-breaking spaces is required. If I find a handful of good and feature articles that don't use them you can just point to other stuff exists and ignore me, so I won't bother. Make your case that they're 1) good practice, 2) required for this article and I'll listen to you. If you're going to point to guidelines and vague ideas, I'll continue to ignore you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see my revert has been reverted which officially makes this an edit war. You wrote I'll continue to ignore you, which sounds like an admission of failure-to-discuss. But maybe you're just having a bad day. Regarding the edit:
It is easily demonstrable that awkward line breaks in dates can happen. You can do this by adjusting the width of your browser window. Obviously I cannot say that a line-wrapped date will cause 100% confusion in 100% of Wikipedia readers. However, I believe that most would agree that a non-breaking date is preferable to a line-wrapped date. Something like 5
May could be a particular problem as the "May" could look like the beginning of a new sentence. Setting aside confusion, even having it read smoother is an improvement over something which could give the reader pause.
Is it required? Of course not. Hardly anything in the MOS is required. The MOS is a guideline, not a policy. It is good practice. And I feel I've said more to the point of the benefit of this application of non-breaking spaces than you have to its inappropriateness. The only new thing you've added is to call it "unnecessary formatting". It's not required, so sure, it's "unnecessary" – but it is still beneficial.
This seems to have reached the point of intransigence so I'm going to ask for a third opinion. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's reached the state of "I want it this way and Walter, you're wrong". It's not beneficial as seeing
October
5, 1956
rather than
October 5,
1956
will not cause confusion to any reader of this or any other article. If this were a table, it would make sense. If it were somehow to break sorting, it would make sense. To force bad line breaks, not necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And speaking of actual content, you took my words out of context like a fundamentalist takes passages out of context to support their hate. Good thing that the full sentence is still there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I apologize if I've been anything but polite and patient. I don't believe that I said you were wrong, but rather that the reasons you initially gave did not support your edit. I'm also sorry if you feel that I took you out of context (though I don't see how the literal meaning could be anything other than a persistent or resumed willful disregard). I'm honestly a little concerned about the escalation from failure to discuss to edit warring to ad hominem attacks. I hope you understand that such behaviour is unproductive.
To force bad line breaks, not necessary. A non-breaking space does not force a line break; it prevents one. If you agree that there are such things as "bad line breaks" then which of your examples above is least-bad? Which is most consistent with the examples at MOS:NBSP ? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. I fully understand what a non-breaking space does. What I'm saying is that if there were a break at that point, that could be the result. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3O request[edit]

A WP:3O has been requested regarding the inclusion of non-breaking spaces in dates. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Response to third opinion request:
This discussion seems like it would be better served at WP:VPT. Consider opening a thread there instead. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: Thank you. My interpretation is that this is more of a MOS issue than a technical issue. Although if the MOS issue is in favour of the non-breaking spaces, it would then make sense to address the script used to make such changes. Maybe this should go to the MOS talk page first, just to make sure? @Walter Görlitz: do you have an opinion? Perhaps you could clarify if your reasoning (or objection) is technical or stylistic? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for the MoS would be the best place to start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toronto_Croatia&oldid=1212465365"