User talk:Dirtlawyer1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to leave me a new message.

Greetings, all, and welcome to my talk page! If you leave a message here, I will respond here. If we started a conversation on another talk page, I have watch-listed that page and will continue to respond there. -- Dirtlawyer1

To my talk archives

Pending Requests for Administratorship[edit]

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 21:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

This list of currently pending Requests for Administratorship (RfAs) is posted here as a community service notice to encourage knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedia editors to participate with greater frequency in the process by which we select our community's administrators. Please click on the blue links within the list and learn more about the RfA process and pending candidates. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg I feel like our discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL player has gotten unnecessarily strained, and it's almost certainly due to my original poor choice of words, so I'd like to apologize for that. Every interaction I've had with you around the wiki has been positive, and I value your opinion and input. ~ RobTalk 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions. You are being contacted to help form a consensus based on your earlier participation at a related thread, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Proposed moves for some single-season stat pages. Thanks in advance. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fu Yuanhui, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 17:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: BARC only has support among non-admins[edit]

I'm bringing a subset of my response here, as I think it not appropriate to the wider discussion.

If having discussion is considered to be campaigning against the proposal, then I am 100% glad for it. I am in violation of nothing. I'm sorry you don't like it.

There was another proposal (though I don't remember where) that showed administrators against the proposal while editors were in support of it. This started some interesting discussions. My intent was to start such discussion. There is a serious disparity in voting patterns among the respective sets. I find that interesting, and worth discussing.

My statement is true. If taking 100% of the votes and breaking them down into their respective rights categories is "cherry picking", then so be it. I think a 100% sample set isn't cherry picking, but we might have different definitions.

I find the attempt to ascribe malfeasance upon me rather upsetting, least of all from you who knows me well enough to assume good faith. I have no friends here, and expect not to be treated as a friend. I do expect to have common courtesy displayed towards me, and this isn't it. I note Kudpung infers people who oppose his BARC process are irrational and non-objective [1]. You will not find me attacking anyone over this, only discussing the proposal itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Hammersoft: I believe you're over-reacting to my comments, probably based on a partial misunderstanding of them, so it's better that you brought it here rather than responding in a more public venue. From our past conversations, you know that I'm not an overly sensitive personality, and I am willing to engage in robust give-and-take unless and until it becomes mean-spirited. My comments regarding "cherry-picking" are straightforward: you have two groups, arbitrators and bureaucrats, for which you have extremely limited samples (three and four, to be precise). I don't know what your academic background in statistics is, but most stats aren't treated with any credibility at all until the sample size exceeds 30 randomly selected examples (n > 30). Even for a relatively small defined group such as current bureaucrats (33), a sample size of n = 4 is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions about the proclivities of the defined group. Bottom line: based on the small sample size relative to the populations of current bureaucrats and current and former arbitrators, we can't even begin to draw any reasonable conclusions about 'crats and arbs and the perceived !voting disparities between them and non-administrator. Looked at another way, the addition of only two or three additional arbs or crats to the sample could completely change the perceived results -- those are not robust statistics. This is even more true because none of the discussion participants were randomly selected, as would be done with a statistically ideal sample, but were self-selected and therefore subject to their own set of statistical biases. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is 3 of 13 active members of ArbCom statistically relevant? Is 4 of the limited pool of active bureaucrats statistically relevant? I'm happy to leave that to the statisticians. Regardless, it isn't cherry picking. I didn't selectively pick which bureaucrats or arbitrators to highlight out of the pool. The only ones I picked were the ones represented in the pool. It's a 100% selection of those that voted. The term "cherry picking" has some very significant pejorative meanings to it. Were you instead to question based on statistics, that's one thing. But to accuse me of "cherry picking" is flat wrong. Overreaction? I don't think so. There is no need to comment on me in any respect. Don't want an 'overreaction', then don't comment on me. I am not campaigning anymore so than Kudpung is. But, I guess it's ok for him to "campaign", but not me? I also wasn't attempting to draw any conclusions about the bureaucrats or arbitrators. That's not the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hammer, it's Kudpung's proposal, not yours. Of course, he supports his own proposal and feels compelled to answer questions, comments and criticisms of his proposal. Presumably, no one understands it better than he does. But commenting 20+ times in an overtly negative fashion does seem like "campaigning," especially when some of the comments have a distinctly and personally hostile feel to it. Even here on my talk page, conversing with me -- someone with whom you have had a friendly and relatively productive relationship -- it's pretty clear you have your back up and ears pinned back. Not sure what that's all about. Is there some reason we can't talk about this as two friendly editors? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You know, I'm sorry, but your initial accusations were bad enough. They should be retracted, though nobody ever does that around here. But to then take issue with me for finding fault with it and squarely laying the blame on me? Sorry, no. I won't accept that. I will continue to post as I see fit, within our policies and guidelines. Kudpung put this proposal into Wikipedia space. At that point, it wasn't "his" proposal anymore, and everyone and anyone is free to comment on the proposal however they see fit, again so long as it is within policy and guideline. I think our ability to have a discussion about this has left the building. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hammer, are you okay? Seriously: I'm asking for your sake. Nothing I said here or there deserves the level of hostility you're exhibiting above. I have no idea where you're coming from or why you are unable to de-escalate and have a normal conversation with me. In the hope that you will return to a conversational level of discourse, I have struck the words "cherry-picked" to which you took such apparent offense. Beyond that, I am flummoxed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine. I can and will take issue with a person who comments on me rather than content. I will take more issue with a person who then finds fault with me for finding fault with them over the issue. And then, for even worse, to ask if *I'm* ok? This is what you did. I find no reason for me not to be affronted by the turn of events here. I'm not going to be ok with people violating basic principles here, no matter how such principles are globally ignored. I can just as easily ask if you are ok. You normally would not descend to violating such principles and even worse attempting to defend such actions. At this point, we're up to our eyeballs in meta discussion. The horse died. Thank you for modifying the post. I appreciate it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • And now, as I hoped, an interesting discussion has evolved in the thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative admin recall proposal[edit]

Dirtlawyer1, you might also be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall. Alakzi (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, A, I'm aware of the discussion. I'm just choosing to focus on the more viable of the various proposals now circulating. In my estimation, the German Wikipedia recall procedure has a number of odd features that are highly unlikely to be accepted by a strong majority of English Wikipedia editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

RfM opened[edit]

Requested opened at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Refactoring dispute. It can take up to an hour for it to appear on the /pending page. This will probably be more productive than further circular argument. on multiple talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Or you could simply act in common courtesy, recognize that your wholesale refactoring of an entire MOS talk page thread is objectionable, and revert your own problematic edits in light of the guidance of WP:TPO. I am undecided whether to participate in your mediation request, especially in light of your mischaracterization of my statements and objections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to mischaracterize them, though I understand them better now (I also expected you'd give your version, of course). Seems unnecessary to go such a route now, though I think at some point there does need to be a clearer "way" when it comes to refactoring. "Normally" is just too vague; we obviously have widely divergent views on what that means. :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Refactoring dispute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 August 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Refactoring dispute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


Appreciate the measured reply. I responded in kind, but it ended up longer than expected. You'll probably find it more conciliatory than you expect.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  22:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Failed commitment[edit]

Dirtlawyer1, you gave me a commitment that you would respond promptly to replies to your Good Article review of Talk:Vratislav Lokvenc/GA1. A significant reply was made on July 31; it is August 15, half a month later, and you have not followed through on that commitment despite being informed of the reply. This is very disappointing.

Since you only seem to respond to hard deadlines, I am giving you 48 hours from the timestamp on this post to make a full response to the nominator's reply. If you do not, I'll have to find someone else to finish the review. (If you know now that you are unable to finish the review, tell me, and I'll find that person right away.) I will regret having to take this action, but the review is 90 days old today, and will be a full three months old at that point; the persistent delays are most unfair to the nominator.

I do hope to see you posting to the review page by then. If something comes up at the last minute, a post to say when you will be able to post should be sufficient for a limited extension, so long as you give a new time when you will definitely finish your next contribution to the review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
It says that this barnstar is awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. I hope that includes disingenuous behaviour that derails our RfCs Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college football player[edit]

DL, what's the word on a CFBHOF field for Template:Infobox college football player? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you mean Florida doesn't only hire guys whose middle name is Boog? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Pilczuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Popov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Iffy rivalry[edit]

Not sure if you're keeping a master list somewhere, but I'm going through some Illinois stuff and came across the Illinois–Missouri football rivalry. It merits a closer look to determine whether or not it qualifies as a true rivalry. State Farm did briefly create a trophy, but the teams played only twice before 1966, have not met since 2010, and have no plans to meet again. Cbl62 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Template editor granted[edit]

Wikipedia Template editor.svg

I have granted template editor rights to your account. For information on this user right, see Wikipedia:Template editor. If you do not want this right, contact me and I will remove it.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Salvidrim!: Thank you, sir. I will do my best to use this new right in keeping with the trust shown in granting it. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
good to know, congrats! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: Thanks. I do not have the master coding skills or experience of Alakzi or Rexx, but I will be happy to assist with maintenance, upkeep and other easy changes to your favorite templates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, you've got the "trust of the community", which is more than some of us can say. Alakzi (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Alakzi: Thanks (I think). FYI, my last conversation with you about the status of your TE permission was the immediate impetus for my application. While you're waiting to get your permission back, I figured that I could of some assistance to you. I obviously don't have your skill set, but I do follow instructions pretty well. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Jolly good; I'll be making the rounds with my requests. Rexx Tuesdays and Wednesdays; Andy Thursdays and Fridays; and my dear Dirtlawyer Saturdays, Sundays and Mondays. Alakzi (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That works for me, A. Like I said -- keep a to-do list of pending TE tasks. I do suspect I will get the better end of the deal, since working closely with you should be an education for me. Face-smile.svg Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi, I hope that you will agree that my trust in you is worthier than the anonymous community ;) - my colour coding tells me that something looks strange in the above but I am not the TE, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Dirtlawyer. I have also enabled the pending changes reviewer right on your account. This will not affect your editing but will allow you to review pending edits should the need arise. If you do not want this ability let me know and I'll remove it. Regards, Swarm 19:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Thanks. I am curious, though, what prompted you to grant me this right . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a pretty basic ability that's meant to be given out fairly liberally. It was unusual that you had all of these other user rights and not the most basic one. Swarm 03:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Swarm, I didn't know I was missing out. Thanks again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

20xx Championships[edit]

Holy crap, I added to one of the AfDs you were in and now that I'm looking through the most recent proposed AfDs, I've realized how absurd these creations are. Props for commenting on all of those, and if you do make some sort of proposal or an essay, please let me know.

Keep trucking. Upjav (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Upjav: Yes, it is ridiculous when we have articles for sporting events that may take place 7 to 13 years in the future. We probably need to adopt a WP:NSPORTS or WP:EVENT guideline on point. That far in advance, these future events merit at most a paragraph in the parent article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg
Hello, Dirtlawyer1. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit re legal things[edit]

I am watching a FA with no author left, and don't know what to think of this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Gerda, I just read through the relevant sections of the article as well as the edits since May 2015. Clearly, I am not an expert on this particular case, but the summary of the outcome of the IRS audit looks like a fair account. The subject was largely vindicated by the audit, only owing an additional net $7,000 on several million dollars of income; for that income class, $7,000 over four years of audited returns is a statistical rounding error. My advice: check the linked references and make sure they support the modified text. If so, I think it's okay. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I may on returning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters in Infobox NFL player[edit]

I went to start figuring out the regex for removing the deprecated parameters for {{Infobox NFL player}} when I thought about an argument that will almost certainly be brought up at the BRFA. WP:COSMETICBOT forbids cosmetic-only changes from being made to articles by bot without good reason. Removing parameters that do not in any way affect the infobox will almost certainly be considered cosmetic. Do we have a good argument for ignoring the fact that this is cosmetic-only? I could make the case that the existence of these parameters is likely to cause confusion and make it likely that new editors will add new information to the wrong parameter, but I don't think that will be an easy sell. Alternatively, if there is a non-cosmetic task fit for a bot on the pages that transclude {{Infobox NFL player}}, I could tag this task onto that. I wish I had known about these parameters prior to fixing those footnotes, as I could have knocked out a lot of them at the same time. Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 23:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't cosmetic in any sense of the word. COSMETICBOT forbids such changes as trimming white space, changing the capitalisation of templates, relocating braces, and other such trivialities. But not all changes that have no visible effect are "cosmetic". If the BAG people don't grok their own guidelines, we might as well throw in the towel. Alakzi (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstand the policy, as I'm not that familiar with precedent for whether the change is cosmetic. I know AWB has a setting that defines cosmetic as anything that doesn't change the HTML output of the page, which this wouldn't. That was what I was using as my baseline. ~ RobTalk 16:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Alakzi: Guys, sorry I have been slow to respond on this topic. I will rely on your greater expertise and experience in preparing the bot request, but there are a whole host of clean-up work items that need to be performed on this template to eliminate deprecated parameter names, etc. The current template is the result of a half-dozen merges of older templates back in 2008-2010, and so some of the older transclusions need a lot of clean-up. If you give me a couple of days, I will review some of the older, messier ones and compile a list of the work that needs to be done. With a little planning, we should be able to accomplish a lot of that outstanding work in a single pass through all 14,000+ uses. Thanks for your input and willingness to work on this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I discussed this a bit with Cyberpower678 who clarified COSMETICBOT for me. I was interpreting it as overly strict, I believe. There's no way to know 100% until a BRFA is submitted, but if we are completing several clean-up tasks and start a discussion to verify that interested editors desire a bot to complete this clean-up, we probably have our bases covered. I know very little about this particular template, so I'll rely on your expertise on what needs doing. Before we think about clean-up, I do have one question. Should {{Infobox gridiron football person}} be merged into {{Infobox NFL player}}? Has this been discussed before? I can see no reason to keep them separate, but I imagine this must have been discussed before. Mind filling me in on past discussions/developments about how these two templates relate to one another? ~ RobTalk 02:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

COLOR on Navbox[edit]

Feel free to put a new color proposal in the RfC and add numbering to proposed colors! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @EvergreenFir: Thanks. This should not be that hard; I think some folks are misunderstanding what is involved and letting personalities get in the way of what should be relatively straightforward adjustment of the percentage screens of the blue colors in present use as the default colors scheme. Some folks seem to be under the misimpression that this would require every navbox to use the same pale blue color scheme. Those with custom color schemes that are already AAA-compliant would not be affected in any way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about merge requests[edit]

The discussion about the "Dygert/Dygart" person, and the possibility of a merge reminded me of an issue that I have been wanting to resolve for a while. I know we usually have only ONE page for college sports teams, regardless of the mascots. Arkansas Tech Wonder Boys and Arkansas Tech Golden Suns are two separate pages that should be merged, (with the cats, etc.) Since I haven't requested a merge before, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on this matter.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@UCO2009bluejay and Jweiss11: Yes, they need to be merged for consistency. Does either page have any particularly active editors? If so, courtesy and common sense would would suggest that they should be consulted to ensure a smooth transition and a minimum of fuss over the merge. I would suggest that you prepare a two- or three-sentence merge proposal in your sandbox, and then ping Jweiss and me when you're ready for a quick review. In the mean time, start an informal conversation with any editors who have done significant work on the articles in the last 6 to 12 months, including the article creators. Hopefully, there will be no opposition; the CFB and CBB regulars will, of course, back the merge. Let me know. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I have a request draft in my original sandbox [2]. The Arkansas Tech pages are mainly updated by an IP. I typically don't bother talking to them because the IP's change. The most involved editor is User:Msjraz64. I have worked with this individual in the past and found the person competent and reasonable however, he/she hasn't edited since May 7-8.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Your merge proposal looks good to me: I would not change a word of it. Leave messages for the article contributors you've identified; most folks just want to be consulted, and that should help reduce any opposition. I suggest you give them four or five days to talk to you after leaving messages on their talk pages, and then start the merge discussion on one article page with a link to the discussion on the other. Ping me we when you're ready to start. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a rivalry[edit]

Hey, I know you are a Gator so here is one for ya: Florida-South Carolina football rivalry. Not sure if this a notable rivalry... MartinMcFly2015 created the article yesterday. I don't know if you've dealt with them yet or not, but I noticed they do like to add two different "largest win margin/streak" in the infoboxes: one for each team. I've been going through and cleaning it up. I'll let you deal with this article! Corkythehornetfan 20:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask you a couple of questions?[edit]

I saw your comments at WP:Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics. Can I ask you a couple of questions?

  1. I am not aware of any special purpose notability guidelines that apply to upcoming big sporting events, like the Olympics, or FINA. Are there any?
  2. If there aren't special purpose guidelines, then it would be WP:GNG that applied, wouldn't it? Well if it is GNG that applies, then wouldn't it be the quality of the references that mattered, and what they substantiated, not the number of years between now and when the event actually takes place? In the case of the 2021 World Championships in Athletics:
    1. The first time an American city hosted the event;
    2. Only the second time the organizers had skipped the regular bid consideration process;
    3. The reason why the regular bid process was ignored has not really been explained;
    4. Officials from other cities that thought they had a chance to have their bid judged the winning bid are not happy the bidding process was skipped.
The four points above are all well documented, so I am curious why the article shouldn't sail past GNG.
With regard to the Aquatic event -- Budapest was announced as the host city in 2013, and then dropped, when Guadalahara dropped out of hosting the 2017 event, and Budapest was pushed forward to take its place. Isn't that well enough documented to satisfy GNG?

I did write that I thought the AFD on the aquatic event was trivial and time-wasting. I ask these questions because, if you are correct, and my comment truly went too far, that would mean there is something you know, that I don't know, and, if that is the case, I would appreciate you sharing it, so I don't make the same mistake again. Geo Swan (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fleming Field[edit]

What happened in 1924? Some older sites have it from 1924 to 1930 and the yearbook remarks about the Rollins game on the "newly completed" gridiron. Was it renovated or something? Stands added? There's also two photos of it from 1924, a panorama with of the Drake game with straight field goal posts and the one on the article of a made field goal through jagged posts. Cake (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @MisterCake: As I understand it, "Fleming Field" was located on what is effectively the front lawn of the current Florida Field/BHG stadium, between the main stadium entrance and University Avenue. When I was cleaning up the Florida Gators football, 1920–29 article five years ago, I could find no definitive source for when the "Fleming Field" name came into use. I'm under the impression that the same playing field may have had one or more generic names, e.g., "University Field," etc., before the Fleming name was attached to it. As I recall, I only used the name when I had contemporary newspaper source for it, as I was afraid that I would insert it anachronistically.
There's also some question of whether this was the same field that was used for military parades and marching exercise by the corps of cadets -- or merely close by. Are you aware that before WWII, the University of Florida was effectively a state-run all-male military academy, with mandatory ROTC participation by all able-bodied students -- like Texas A&M was previously? Florida is still one of the strongest ROTC programs in the country, and one of the few to have all three services represented on campus. When I was an undergrad in the mid-80s, I had a dozen or so fraternity brothers who were in either NROTC or AROTC (about 10% of the fraternity members). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"Newly completed" doesn't seem like "newly christened" or "newly dedicated" but maybe it was. I did know Florida was a strong military school - for instance the cannons on campus for the Bo Gator Storter story, though I did not know they were all ROTC. The Germans used to have fraternities with mandatory sword duels. Never heard of anything before about a military field and whether it was Florida field; but I only recently realized Perry Field meant Tootie. Something must have happened in '24. Cake (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. You can find old team photos of all of the players in their cadet uniforms. The marching band wore cadet uniforms well into the 1930s. And I have seen photos of the university cavalry unit on parade on what appears to be Fleming Field (or an adjoining parade field), complete with the old, pre-Florida Field wooden stands in the background. The university's athletic playing fields were a pretty casual affair before Tigert instigated the construction of Florida Field in 1930. Before then, the Gators were just as likely to play their "home" football games in Jacksonville or Tampa as Gainesville. Perry Field was built on land donated by the Perry family; as I recall, the Perrys owned the local dairy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If i may be so bold... according to Norm Carlson, University Athletic Field was official rechristened Fleming Field in 1915. That being said, while I've always enjoyed Carlson's stories, I've found that they are not always 100% accurate. However, he was an official university historian, so there's that. Zeng8r (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Zeng8r and MisterCake: Likewise, while I respect and appreciate Norm's contributions to documenting the Gators' history as sports information director, I have found numerous factual errors in his "Norm Carlson remembers . . ." article series that he has written in semi-retirement for UAA's GatorZone website. They are usually the sort of errors that one makes when one iss (a) older in years, (b) relying on anecdotes from now-deceased former Gators who were old when he was a young UAA employee in the 1950s and 1960s, and (c) conflating different historical threads. Norm is usually a very good source for Gators football and other sports history from the late 1950s through the 1990s, when he was a full-time UAA employee and he was a participant in and/or first-hand witness of many of the events being recalled. I believe he was hired as an assistant sports information director in either '57 or '58, after a brief stint with Auburn's athletic department. He was previously a Florida undergraduate in the early 1950s. Small correction: he was not the university historian, but became the athletic department historian in semi-retirement after Spurrier left. FYI, I'm pretty sure that Carlson is responsible for one of the bigger errors in popular Gators history, that of inflating Fergie Ferguson's 1941 All-America honors to first-team (Fergie was, in fact, an honorable mention by Collier's in 1941). Back to the subject at hand, Carlson may or may not be correct about Fleming Field being so named in 1915, but, if so, we should be able to find contemporary newspaper or Seminole yearbook accounts that refer to the field as such between 1915 and 1924. I would also caution against assuming any given "home" game was played on Fleming Field; the Gators often played home games in bigger stadiums off campus prior to the construction of Florida Field in 1930, continued to do so until World War II, and did so intermittently again in the 1970s. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
One source has it called such in 1921. I did not mean to imply it has to be a name, though it is odd how 1924 is the first year where it's many places. Cake (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
What's the 1921 source, Cake? BTW, here's the $64 question: who was Fleming? Knowing that might help place the naming event, officially or informally. Have you looked through the old yearbooks for references to the name? You may also want to check the Seminole ROTC pages, too, for references to it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that Fleming was Francis P. Fleming, late governor of Florida. It's mentioned in the Carlson piece linked above, and I swear I've seen it corroborated somewhere else but can't remember where. Thought it might be in Tom McEwen's "Gators", but I just skimmed my copy and didn't see it. Somewhere in Yon Hall, I bet there's a box of old newspaper clippings containing the answers we seek... Zeng8r (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zeng8r: Well, that's as good as any story I've heard. It appears that Fleming was the governor during a crucial period after Florida Agricultural College was founded in 1884, and according to the Wikipedia article (and Norm Carlson source), his son served on the Board of Control for the university system (and, yes, I noted whose edits added those tidbits). Given old man Fleming's unreconstructed segregationism, I can only imagine his son was one of the BOC members who was behind the sacking of Andrew Sledd in 1909. BTW, I have found McEwen to be a much more reliable source of the pre-World War II Gators than Carlson. When McEwen wrote his book in 1973–74, a lot of the old-timer players and coaches from the late teens, 1920s and 1930s were still alive, and the program had strong Tampa connections from those eras. Dutch Stanley was still working at the university then, General van Fleet was alive and living in Polk County, and Charlie Bachman was still alive and retired in Charlotte County. If memory serves McEwen's brother played for the Gators in the 1920s or 1930s. Now that I think about it, if the Tampa Tribune online archives include McEwen's old sports columns, it might be worth subscribing. Are you a Trib online subscriber, Zen? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Dirtlawyer1: The source is our game with Goat Hale. Don't see the yearbook calling it Fleming before 1924, and it has the cryptic note I quoted leading to my question in the first place. As for FAC, the 1899 FAC team might be the oldest in Florida outside of Stetson. And a McEwen backed up Crabtree in '29. Cake (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, 1921 looks pretty solid for a football field called Fleming based on the Atlanta Constitution article details. I'm guessing, but the 1924 reference to newly "completed completed" may refer to the wooden stands or other improvements on the field. It's also conceivable the field had been regraded, rebuilt, drainage installed, etc. The location where Florida Field was built immediately to the south of Fleming Field was notorious for its bad drainage, which was exacerbated by the fact the playing surface is actually below ground level (it was originally built as an amphitheatre, and at the confluence of an underground creek, etc. Apparently it was quite the civil engineering project to get it to drain properly, including the construction of several huge undergraduate culverts. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's why I asked if perhaps stands were added or something along those lines, and mentioned the different looking field goal posts in two pictures of the same year. It looks like the student newspaper calls it Fleming a bit before 1924, e. g. against Howard; but good luck finding anything saying it before WW1. Cake (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It was J. Milton McEwen by the way. Here he is practicing on the beach. Cake (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Time to shine[edit]

Template talk:Respell#Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2015. Alakzi (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: Getting a late start today . . . where are we with this? Breifly reviewed the template talk page discussion. Is this going to be controversial in any way? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's already been rejected by someone who's got an axe to grind with me, so there's no point. Alakzi (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)