User talk:Sbaio/Archive 2016

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Neopaganism among Balts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Sabbatino, why Neopaganism and if we mention this, why don't we mention several other religious movements that are probably also current among Balts? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should. Or better yet – we remove religions. There's nothing in the text about Christianity either. We don't need any speculation, do we? – Sabbatino (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jody Scheckter may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| birth_place = [[East London, Eastern Cape|East London]], South Africa]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hapshash

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The album was not called Featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids. It was called Hapshash and the Coloured Coat featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids. I realise that presents difficulties in that we don't want to say... 'the album Hapshash and the Coloured Coat featuring the Human Host and the Heavy Metal Kids, by Hapshash and the Coloured Coat...' - but I think my solution was both more elegant and, more importantly, more correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: If that's the case then album's name should be corrected on the band's article. And somehow sources give a different name for this album so it's pretty much a headache, which needs to be solved in some way. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, I suppose it's a moot point. Here is a label shot, which I suppose could be read either way. I'll leave it for now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: Or we could insert a note next to album's name which explains that the name differs? – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"[Studio name] in [location]"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings. There is no guideline at Infobox album on the usage of the studio field, so why can't this be left as "Carriage House Studios in Stamford, Connecticut"? To have a comma separating the studio from its geographic location looks 'off' to me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: You're right. There's no mention about this specifically. I'm willing to use your proposal, but as I said before – we need to keep consistency on all articles. Cheers. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've been using that format since 2008, and I've seen it in many other articles (unless somewhere, deep within an MOS or talk page, the "and" was replaced by a comma). So we're talking a good hundred articles—including the first five Overkill albums. Can I change those back at least, to read "and" instead of the comma? Either that, or we could start a discussion Infobox album to see if a guideline could be created for that field. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I also saw [studio name] in [location] format in many articles. However, I also saw [studio name], [location] format in articles too. It's a tricky situtation. And by "and" you meant "in"? I will repeat again – if we change, we change it in all articles, because there needs to be consistency... P.s. I see there was a question on Template talk:Infobox album#Studio parameter regarding this matter, but nothing is clear from those few words... – Sabbatino (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(Yes, I meant "in" not "and".) The articles on my watchlist (a hundred or so), in general, stick to the "[studio] in [location]" format rather than comma separation... But that's just those. For the tens of thousands more out there, I agree a guideline needs to be set for one way or the other. I'll start up a fresh discussion at the Project talk page soon. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Give me a link when you do so. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FK Žalgiris (Kaunas)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I realise that English wikipedia should have the English name, but that's not the case here. FK Spyris Kaunas was literally renamed to FK "Kauno Žalgiris", it even says so on the official page (http://zalgiris.lt/football/). Renaming the team to just "Žalgiris" would have caused legal problems with the other "Žalgiris" team in Lithuanian football FK "Žalgiris" Vilnius. That was the original plan for Spyris, they tried to change their name to "Žalgiris" for their first season in A Lyga, but the Lithuanian Football Federation denied their request as it conflicted with the rules of LFF and they were forced to play under the name "Spyris". This off-season the name "Kauno Žalgiris" was allowed (http://www.15min.lt/sportas/naujiena/futbolas/pestynes-del-pavadinimo-baigtos-kauno-spyris-bus-perkrikstytas-i-kauno-zalgiri-24-566713), even so FK "Žalgiris" Vilnius is still currently trying to deny this name change in court. (http://www.fkzalgiris.lt/naujienos/n5548_vilniaus_%E2%80%9Ezalgiris%E2%80%9C_gins_savo_teises_teisme.html)

8obis (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@8obis: I know the whole story between Žalgiris and Spyris. But you're missing the point – Wikipedia is free and you can name an article however you want. Clubs won't take legal actions against Wikipedia, because they can't. And FK Žalgiris (Kaunas) is perfectly fine, because it distincts Vilnius and Kaunas clubs. I added a note to both clubs and in my opinion, that note should have been added a long time ago. So please, don't move the page again, at least until the start of the season when we'll know the real names of the club... – Sabbatino (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NBA All-Stars

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I saw your edit to remove Kawhi Leonard's recent All-Star selection from his infobox. History (not just Wikipedia) treats a player as an All-Star by virtue of their selection, whether or not they actually play in the game. Therefore, there is no worry of WP:CRYSTAL in adding it to articles. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Thanks for the heads up as I didn't really knew this. I'll keep that in mind. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lithuanians may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| pop20 = 632 (2010){{efn|800,000 including of Lithuanian descent (2010))<ref>{{cite web |title=Um atalho para a Europa |work=Epoca |publisher=Editora Globo S.A |date= 24

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox album/studio field

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As promised, I have started a new discussion at Template talk:Infobox album. Let's see what everyone thinks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's no such thing nowadays. LAWS ARE EQUAL TO EVERYONE.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And your source is?Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: What source do you need? According to Constitution – Lithuanian is the only official language in Lithuania. Therefore, all documents, all signs, etc. must be written in LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE. And as for surnames, Lithuanian alphabet doesn't have Q, W and X letters, so surnames must be correct as stated in Law on the State language. Same applies to street signs. Constitution and law are created for a reason. So stop spreading propaganda which is not true, because institutions are just obeying the laws. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You admit that Lithuanization is an official state policy.

Lithuania is a member of the EU and doean't respect minority rights. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: It's not a state policy. Laws are made for everyone and ethnicity doesn't give any privilege to do otherwise. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please use Talk:History of Vilnius

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lithuanina nationalistic propaganda will be always removed.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your emoval of Vilna ghetto link is disgusting.Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything related to Vilna Ghetto. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2017 in heavy metal music

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just left a message on Talk:2017 in heavy metal music, where I explained why the 2017 in heavy metal music article shouldn't be deleted. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@MetalDiablo666: That's not enough content. Last year someone also created an article for 2016 around February/March, but it got deleted various times until I asked the admins around September for permission to create it, because in the year's end, there was plenty of info. But not now. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James Hunt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, yes, there is no consensus on whether to include "UK" or not, which is why taking it out or adding it is discouraged. In other words, if it's there it's best to leave it, and if it's not there it's best not to add it. There's been a lot of argument over it and this seems the best way to avoid trouble. Imposing uniformity would be impossible because agreement and consensus is so unlikely. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Thanks for the explanation. Is this a sensitive topic for British people? I thought Brits don't have disagreements over this, but looks like I was wrong... – Sabbatino (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise you weren't British – my bad. Yes! I didn't know how sensitive since I saw arguments on Wikipedia about it. A good example is section 2 of Talk:Jeremy Corbyn; it's quite a doozie. Nationalism within the UK is becoming a more vibrant topic all the time, it seems. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bretonbanquet: Went through that discussion and now I see what you mean. Both sides have good arguments over this issue. However, it is sad that people can't agree on such a simple matter. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, there's a great deal of intransigence on both sides, and technically neither side is wrong. It's as close to an insoluble argument I've ever seen... Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Torchetti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[Category:Minnesota Wild coaches]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improper formatting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sabbatino,

There's a problem with the formatting on the 2016 World Touring Car Championship article, but I can't figure out what it is. As I view Wikipedia on a mobile device, it's probably gone unnoticed by most editors. Each individual section, like the teams and drivers, the table and the results should have its oen collapsible section. But for some reason, only the teams and drivers section is collapsible; everything else is hidden from view until you expand the teams and drivers section. So there is an error in the markup somewhere, but I can't seem to find it. Do you mind taking a look, please? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Prisonermonkeys: Done. Spent some time figuring out what's wrong, but found it. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link to category in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What advice you can give, if I want to get information about some country's nature quickly, but overview article is absent? I think link to category about environment is rather nice too. Why do you revert this add? Cathry (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cathry: Here's why:

Categories are not tagged with See also or Main article tags. All categories should be added to articles that are related to them. Therefore, all articles using that category are listed there.
If you create a paragraph called Environment then it should be a proper paragraph and have text in it (2 or 3 sentences doesn't count). No blank paragraphs belong in the article. Furthermore, there's not enough info to make it into a paragraph. Simple as that. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"are not tagged with " what is the reason? Is there rule about it? At first i added it to Geography section (and it is proper section, because geography studies it). Cathry (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cathry: Those tags are for articles. Categories belong at the bottom of the page, but this category that you added certainly doesn't belong in Lithuania's article. Only certain articles use that category and you can find those articles in that category. I thought you were a new user, but I was suprised to see that you aren't. It seems that you don't know how a proper paragraph should look like and what's the purpose of categories. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Those tags are for articles" - is it some sacred knowledge which revealed in meditation or maybe there is rule about it? I am more interested in the information than in the proper looks of paragraphs. This way of category adding [[:Сategory:example]] with colon is not for bottom of the page, it is to link to a category page without putting the current page in that category Cathry (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cathry: I know what Сategory:example means. Read Help:Category, Template:Main article, Template:Further, Template:See also and MOS:BODY before asking more questions. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you can't answer this simple question and explain what is wrong with such links. What about Template:Category see also ? Cathry (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cathry: That category that you added doesn't have anything special for it to be distincted and put in the article. I don't have time right now, but I'm sure content of that category is mentioned somewhere in Lithuania article. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve Kerr coaching record

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Kerr&oldid=717529331 Why did you undo this edit? Don't understand why Wikipedia should wait until the playoffs are over to have current information. These edits are useful, timely and make Wikipedia more valuable since it's up to date with factual information. --E bailey (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is no live updates on sport's articles. The main issue is it could get mixed up and show wrong information (numbers in this case). This was always the practice for NBA, NHL or any other sport-related article. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Where's the consensus? Can you reference it? I've searched and I can't find anything about this topic. If WP can be up-to-date, accurate and verifiable then why wait until the end of the playoffs? People update records and stats during the regular season. Why not during the playoffs? Other pages like 2016 NBA Playoffs are getting updated with very current info. I'm trying to understand where this policy or guideline comes from and which articles it applies to or doesn't. --E bailey (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Read again – that's the consensus regarding team/coach/player statistics. 2016 NBA Playoffs is a different case – it is supposed to be up to date. And as for consensus, just ask about it at WT:NBA or WT:BASKETBALL. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a note from one of the articles related to sports – DO NOT UPDATE CURRENT YEAR STATS UNTIL END OF SEASON PER WIKIPEDIA STANDARD AS IT MAKES A MESS OF THE EDITS DATABASE AND WIKIPEDIA IS NOT INTENDED TO BE UP TO THE MINUTE SPORTS STAT DATABASE. This is the main issue and personal/team stats should be updated after it is over. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sabbatino, simply copying and pasting text here doesn't help me, or others, as a newbie understand this as a policy. When I see you respond to edits with 'Update this after their playoffs are over', it's neutral but doesn't help new, well-intentioned editors learn what's acceptable and what's not. I think you should point people towards policy. I've done more researching on this topic and still can't find anything definitive in Wikipedia policy except as it pertains to live scores while games are going on - there's this WP:LIVESCORES. And there was a proposal to make 'Wikipedia is not a scoredboard' official, but it failed - Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_47#Proposal_to_add_Wikipedia_is_not_a_Scoreboard. Also found this about baseball stats - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball_players/Archive1#Statistics_for_active_players. --E bailey (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In the past I was referred to WP:NOTNEWS. And as I said above, ask such questions at appropriate places (WT:NBA or WT:BASKETBALL) where people with more knowledge will tell you what is what. And those words that I copied above are pretty clear, so I don't really see what you can't understand. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those words are pretty clear and I understand them. The point is that simply copying and pasting them doesn't help me find their source and the context for these standards. I searched for that string in all of Wikipedia and the only place I could find 'DO NOT UPDATE CURRENT YEAR STATS UNTIL END OF SEASON PER WIKIPEDIA STANDARD' is on this user's talk page: User talk:K. Annoyomous/Archive 4. So it feels like you are dictating what the standard is rather than showing me places where I can find the standard. I understand what the practice is and will ask about it on appropriate pages when necessary. I was just hoping to convince you that there are constructive ways to respond to edits that will communicate the standard and encourage people to continue editing rather than simply reverting edits without much context. --E bailey (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm telling you – ask such questions at WT:NBA or WT:BASKETBALL, because I couldn't get an answer after asking the same question to someone else in the past and didn't really search for the reason. On the other hand, when the time passed I understood why this rule exists and I already wrote why that is. Don't want to sound rude, but I should have told you this in the beginning. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Antonio Spurs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Green. 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) 12:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:INFOBOXFLAG

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actually WP:INFOBOXFLAG says that flags in infoboxes should generally be avoided. However a loose consensus was reached some time ago after multiple discussions at WT:F1 that F1 infoboxes could retain flags but that there was no consensus for non-F1 drivers to have flags. There is a discussion here which clarifies the situation following the (much) earlier discussions. If you disagree with it please feel free to raise it at the F1 project page. Eagleash (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: You are right, but as always there are exceptions. It's unfair that F1 drivers can keep flags in their infoboxes and other racing drivers can't. It makes people think that F1 drivers are very different from others and have such "privilege". And your link to discussion regarding this matter doesn't clarify anything as I can only see three posts by the same user and you can barely call it a discussion... – Sabbatino (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The posts by BB merely summarised the much earlier and extremely lengthy discussions at WT:F1. It has been the 'consensus' for a few years now that F1 drivers get to keep their flags whereas lesser categories (even Le Mans drivers) do not (and yes, they (F1) are regarded as the 'elite'). I believe Tennis and Golf have some similar exceptions to the flag rule. As I say, if you think it is 'unfair' please raise it again at the project page. Eagleash (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Ice hockey also has it, but it's in the template and it can't be removed without a discussion. As for racing drivers, looks like I'll have to do exactly as you wrote. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Whilst on the subject of flags in infoboxes, you have not made a valid point for removing all the flag links I put in. Care to explain why when it makes more sense to have the name as the link than the flag itself? Holdenman05 (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Holdenman05: Per MOS:OVERLINK – Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions. I guess no further explanation is needed. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

They aren't exceptions, MOS:SPORTFLAGS alows them when they represent sporting nationality and not just nationality. Ice hockey for example its representing the national teams they have played on, thus it doesn't violate INFOBOXFLAG. I believe F1 racers are also grouped by the country they are from, and those flags represent that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: How they aren't exceptions if only F1 drivers can have flags in their infoboxes and others can't (according to the use who started this discussion)? – Sabbatino (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I was responding more to the ice hockey, golf, tennis. F1 I believe promotes their drivers as being from X country whereas other levels don't I think, I am not super familiar with F1 but I vaguely recall that being part of the discussion that happened a few years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: I didn't say that ice hockey, golf or tennis were exceptions. You misunderstood. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I was replying to Eagleash. Watch the indents ;) -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Sorry. I thought you were replying to my post as I also used exceptions. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free rationale for File:BC Šiauliai logo.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BC Šiauliai logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Done. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motörhead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't know why you have vandalised my work, that I've spent weeks fixing the syntax of every single Motörhead album, but you can put it back and then discuss what it is you have in mind. I am not very impressed by you wording for a summary nor am i impressed with what you have done. Revert them all please and them I will debate with you your concerns. I will change them all back to what I edited them all to be if you don't, as I'm the only person that's worked on them for years and I am not happy with your efforts to vandalise my hours, upon hours, upon hours of work. No do I agree with any of your edit summaries. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 12:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: You should lose this attitude as nothing was vandalised and everything was done according to MOS:DATEFORMAT, Template:Infobox album and references don't belong in the article headings. You should also read WP:VANDAL, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV as a lot of your additions consist of original research, non-neutral POV and doesn't list verifiable content, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. And just because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that doesn't mean that you are right. You can also stop trying to own every single article related to Motörhead. I can see that you don't really understand how things work on Wikipedia, you fail many policies and don't really know how to be WP:CIVIL. Also, considering that you already went to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, means that you could really use a break from here until you understand what is what. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, statements like "by (then) British band Motörhead" or "(technically) fifth live album by (then) British band Motörhead" don't belong here either. What's that supposed to mean? Did the band changed its nationality or what? Motörhead article's opening line specifically states "Motörhead (/ˈmoʊtərhɛd/) were an English...", so your addition is even more silly and contradicts itself. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

After taking a further look I noticed that you made the same mistakes in every single Motörhead article that you edited. Not only you go against MOS:DATEFORMAT, but also WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. This also applies to every other policy mentioned in the post above. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to say I don't consider my response to have been uncivil at all. I consider your actions to be a form of vandalising my efforts and contribution, if others don't. I've learnt that the process is to have a debate about such matters before actions. You clearly don't think that was needed, so once again I'm disappointed by the unilateral actions of a senior editor. You may be correct, you may have acted accordingly to some policy, you may be more knowledgeable than me, and you may try and claim I'm being argumentative or combative, but I'm neither. I'm stating my perspective of your actions, nothing more. But I wont get any support and you can find a plethora probably. I don't claim ownership of anything, either, I have been fixing the syntax of all the articles, and also making them uniform as a body of work, nothing more. Claiming anything else is incorrect. Most of the written work was done by others and I haven't altered it except the odd grammar or syntax issue, with some minor additions, with citations, and for those articles still lacking the odd cite, well I'm nowhere near finished anyway. I'll add that I consider this yet another example of someone with privilege and power exercising it in a manner that is the primary reason dedicated contributors leave, and that's not said with malice or anger or even bitterness, but honest sadness and more disappointment. If people can't tell the difference in my words compared to actual hubris, well....I give up then. But that probably wont mean much to many either, will it?

Regards, Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 13:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: What's there to discuss about? I gave you my reasons and showed what policies you failed. If I was to rework everything completely or something was controversial then a discussion might be needed, but not now when all I did was edit everything according to Template:Infobox album, [MOS:DATEFORMAT]], WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. And yes, you are being hostile when you revert everything and call it "vandalism". I will again advise you to read WP:VANDAL before accusing someone of vandalism. I will also repeat it again – just because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that doesn't mean you are right. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to establish some good faith between us both, and to be diligent in my learning curbs here, I've had a closer inspection of you points raised and the changes you have made via your edits (no, I hadn't gone trough them with a microscope previously, all I saw was a heck of a lot of Red on my msg screen and didn't like it, I'll honestly admit). I have read various policies about various factors that WP wants us to comply with in regards to articles structure and formats. After going through the changes you made, I can see some reasoning behind your edits now and obviously have to take this as another learning experience. My response to the situation is not based on WP wording issues that editors with years of experience like to cite. I speak in plain Aussie English, and dos o straight up as we say. I'll honestly say thank you for yet another lesson here, as I do learn by the way, and I will also be very infrequent now after some large efforts. I have only been attempting to collaborate the body of work into a synced format style as a whole, not take ownership as others have worked hard before me, and Motörhead are not my only concern on here. I will say good day without anger or resentment, and hope we can move forward from this positively, but I also realise that it is more me that is needing to do so than you.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Patron saint of Lithuania

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no state religion in, for example, Czechia, too. Moreover, Czechs are one of the least religious nations in the world. Anyway, in the article on Czech Republic, traditional patron saint of Czechia is indicated in the Infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.67.227 (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@78.157.67.227: Czech Republic and Lithuania are different countries and it doesn't mean that if one of them list their patron saint, the other should do that to. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nashville Predators, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Neal. 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) 09:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ACCESSIBILTY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The red on dark blue or black colour scheme was recently rejected for Draft:Template:Reg Parnell Racing on the grounds that it was difficult to read particularly for colour-blind readers. This one was much the same and therefore needs to be amended in accordance with accessibility guidelines. You can of course change the colours at Template:STR if you so wish but please make sure that they are easy to read and comply with the various standards at WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alliance of Patriots of Georgia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sabbatino,

The Alliance of Patriots of Georgia has written a complaint to wikipedia. You deliberately write false information about our party, which violates our rights. We are appealing to the Court regarding this issue, and demand that you are blocked.

@Editor11998855: Take your threats somewhere else as you are the one who will be banned from here. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Minnesota Timberwolves

added a link pointing to Chris Wright

Stefan Liv

added a link pointing to RUS

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyediting question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In formal typesetting, there are no spaces before and after n- and m-dashes. What is the standard here at Wikipedia? You've added them back at Phoebe Snetsinger, and this is fine (as long as this is what WP wants, in general, around dashes in date ranges). All OK? Is this the way WP does things? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: MOS:BIRTHDATE and MOS:DOB (this policy especially) cover this. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LISTCRUFT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay on stand-alone lists based on trivial criteria. How does this apply, in any shape or form, to a neat and very handy table of historical affiliations in city articles? How are these tables "trivial"? They are extremely helpful in summarizing history sections and not not having to list every regime change. Try writing any history for any town in Lithuania and you will spend more than half of your history section describing how it when from Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Russia to independent Lithuania, etc. Renata (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

1. This list was added about a year ago by the very same user. Of course, it was removed and none of the users had any objections. So I find it silly that now you care for it and not one year ago. Moreover, that's why prose is there. Everything is covered there. 2. As for "Try writing any history for any town in Lithuania and you will spend more than half of your history section describing how it when from Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Russia to independent Lithuania, etc." – that's exaggerated. Kaunas would be a good example: GDL→PLC→Russian Empire→Lithuania→USSR→Nazi Germany→USSR→Lithuania. That doesn't look like "...more than half of your history section..." to me. 3. These kinds of lists aren't needed as they don't add anything to the article apart from another table. Furthermore, History of Vilnius covers all these things perfectly and we don't need to repeat everything twice. That's the reason why History of [insert city] articles exist in the first place. 4. Many people thanked me for edits regarding this and I believe that means something, doesn't it? – Sabbatino (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not answer the core question: how are such tables trivial and not useful to a reader? As to #3, the same can (and has been) said about infoboxes: they don't add anything that should not be already in the prose. Yet, time and again, it was proven to be useful to readers and infoboxes are encouraged. Renata (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I did answer. But I'll try that again. Historical affiliation tables are trivial, because they don't really give any information besides describing a different political system and all that information is covered in prose. And don't include infoboxes in the mix as they summarize the key facts about a country/city/person. Although, I do agree that some infoboxes should be removed as there aren't enough reliable information regarding some subject and some of the stuff is purely speculative. – Sabbatino (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference errors on 26 June

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2016–17 New Jersey Devils season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

License tagging for File:HC Ambri-Piotta (logo).png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for uploading File:HC Ambri-Piotta (logo).png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How are my edits disruptive? I am only trying to convey the essence of black metal in the limited space that this article allows. Since Wikipedia is hugely powerful in the way that information is disseminated and history is represented, I believe this to be an important edit. I am making a ernest claim that if one picture should represent black metal on this page, it should be a picture of Bathory and not Burzum. Bathory is more essential and influential to black metal than Burzum by any metric. What allows your taste to dictate the contents of this page? Why are you threatening me for making what I believe to be an important edit? I'm pretty sure a poll of metal fans would confirm my assertion. Also, a status quo bias (this picture was here before that picture) is not a good enough reason to reject my edit. Darth malloc (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Darth malloc: Black metal has its own article and a discussion showed that Burzum's picture is best for Heavy metal music article. In addition, I see that you're new here and don't really understand how some things work. Even if you think that something is good, you should firstly discuss it with the community here. If a consensus is reached then that image can appear here. Furthermore, it looks like that image is copyrighted and will most likely be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NBA roster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry if my most recent undo may appear to be disruptive at first, but I did see someone edit the official template for all NBA rosters to include nationalities again. I don't exactly know who did it or why they did it, but it just made the entire roster look out of place, especially with seeing the names be labelled as a part of one's nationality. Anyways, if you or someone else that knows the exact location of the default NBA roster spots can find it and automatically remove the nationalities on every team's article list, I'd be grateful for that. Again, I apologize in advance for this. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@AGreatPhoenixSunsFan: Fixed. One user decided to change that without reaching a consensus. I tend to think that user and IP user are the same person. No need to apologize as you did what was best. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message and understanding of the situation at hand here. :D – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of National Basketball Association arenas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here's why I made those changes.

Removing unnecessary state qualifiers from certain well-known cities (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States)
Removing links to well-known locations, such as New York City, Los Angeles. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked).
Fixing (simplifying) links to venues:

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Consistency is above everything else and just because guideline X states one thing or another, it doesn't mean that it should be used every time and everywhere. Listing cities differently in that whole article doesn't give any consistency, which is why WP:IAR can be used. For example, just listing Toronto is not enough, because there are more places named Toronto around the world. We either list City, State or just City to keep consistency throughout the article. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Consistency is important only insofar as it serves our main priority, usability. What's important is that we make life as easy as possible for our readers. There's only one Toronto/New York City/Los Angeles etc. of any significance in North America (or the world, for that matter); that's why the guideline says to specify simply the unqualified city name - adding redundant information such as "Ontario" doesn't help our readers, it just clutters the page up and detracts from links that are actually useful. And I see you have also reinstated all the unhelpful piping I removed, and reinstated the 4-digit end years, which I changed as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Other_date_ranges - are you disagreeing with those guidelines too?. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Consistency is more important. Despite Toronto/New York City/Los Angeles etc. being the only cities of any significance in North America (or the world, for that matter), but that doesn't change the fact that there are other cities with the same name and it should be distinguished. Date ranges were reinstated by accident. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The goal is usability for our readers. Consistency is not a goal in itself, it's a tool which we may use to improve usability, or choose to discard if it doesn't improve usability.
The article about Toronto is titled simply 'Toronto', with no qualifier, because that's the only significant city with that name. When an article refers to 'Toronto', a reader will assume the reference is to the largest city in Canada unless another Toronto with a qualifier (e.g. Toronto, Illinois) is specified. The same applies to Los Angeles, Philadelphia, etc. By your logic, every single city name should always be fully specified whenever there's another city of that name anywhere in the world (e.g. never just London, but always 'London, England'; or never just Berlin but always 'Berlin, Germany'?). That is not standard practice, and for good reason. We only need to be specific enough to avoid ambiguity within the context. No reader is going to be in doubt as to whether the Canadian city that hosts an NBA team is really Toronto, Prince Edward Island (population 800), or the US city named Los Angeles might refer to Los Angeles, Texas (pop 20). Colonies Chris (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris:

Usability might be above if consistency causes huge problems and now it doesn't. The same can be said about every other police/guideline. Some of the guidelines are absurd as most of them contradict each other, because X is more known than Y. Of course we should use common sense, but common sense is different in every person.
Please don't mix European cities into this, because that's another story. London might be significant to most of the world, but London, Ontario might be more significant to Canadians. American and Canadian people usually accompany state name with a city name (Miami, Florida; Montreal, Quebec and others). And that's from my own experience (some of the Americans even told Brooklyn, New York to me and they said it's normal practice). As for your examples, most people outside the United States don't even know that Toronto is in Ontario or that Los Angeles is in California. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, US cities are generally referred to with their state, even when it's not an essential disambiguator, but the guideline I quoted above specifically makes an exception of a set of cities which are to be referred to without the state qualifier: that's why the article titles for those cities don't include the state name. Examples are Los Angeles, Denver, New Orleans, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Miami, and quite a few others. With Canadian cities, the convention is somewhat different (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Canada-related_articles#Article_names) - we only add the province when it actually is an essential qualifier; hence not only major cities such as Toronto, Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal, but also lesser-known places such as Barrie (Ontario), or Yorkton (Saskatchewan) have titles unqualified by the province. It doesn't help our readers to be told that Toronto is in Ontario; if they have so little idea of geography that they don't know Toronto is a major Canadian city, then they won't know where Ontario is either. A reader who wants more details on the city can click the link. And no reader is ever likely to click on the Ontario link, so it's valueless, just clutter. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: You completely misunderstood what I wanted to say. What I meant was that average user might know that Toronto is in Canada. What it wouldn't know is that it is located in Ontario. Moreover, Google shows different search results for different regions so people might get varying results when they search for something specific. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what Google search results have to do with this at all.

Perhaps a reader might not know Toronto is in Ontario, but that's not an issue for this article, which is about NBA arenas. If they're really interested, they can click on the Toronto link and find out. And the chances are they're not interested in that - that's not what they've come to this page for. This is a list of arenas, so the link they're most likely to click on is the name of the arena, to find out more about the arena they have a particular interest in. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Google search has to do with this pretty much as it can show what people search and what results different places around the world can get. You're having double standards when you want to list Toronto or Oakland, California. Furthermore, delinking New York City doesn't justify your actions and it shows more double standards (or triple standards?) and all that is wrong. Why link something and not link everything else? Don't say common sense, because that has nothing to do with it as every person is different and he/she can have a different common sense. Of course you'll repeat the same song "if they're really interested, they can click on the city (or arena in New York City's case) link and find out..." That's silly, isn't it? – Sabbatino (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't some whim of mine - this is the agreed standard. Please look at the links to the MoS I provided above. They state, as I said, that some major US cities should not have the state qualifier - this is in line with the usage recommended by AP, widely used in the US media - and some, the best known, such as New York City, should not generally be linked at all. It's hardly likely that a reader would want to find out about New York City - a very large subject with very little relevance to basketball arenas - from this page. They're on this page because they're interested in basketball arenas. That's the only link they're likely to click on. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Why should I look at something that I read many times? These are just guidelines and they only give an idea on what to do or vice versa. Just because there are guidelines, it doesn't mean that they should be applied in every single article. "If they're really interested, they can click on the Toronto link and find out" and "It's hardly likely that a reader would want to find out about New York City - a very large subject with very little relevance to basketball arenas - from this page. They're on this page because they're interested in basketball arenas. That's the only link they're likely to click on." – as I said before, you're repeating the same song over and over again. At the beginning you said that states are irrelevant and now you say that some of the cities shouldn't be linked at all. Despite what policies/guidelines say, but I can again say that my use of WP:IAR can be justified, because consistency is the most important thing and some of those things shouldn't be blindly followed everywhere. P.s. And here's another thing to remember – don't come here until you have valid arguments on why something should look like the guidelines/policies say, because nobody had any objections the way this page looked for many years. Or better yet, try to discuss it somewhere else (article's talk page or pages that are related to this issue), because my talk page is not a message board or forum. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

(←) I'm discussing this on your talk page because you are the editor who reverted my changes, all of which were in accordance with agreed guidelines. You keep asserting that consistency comes above everything else, but why do you say that? What justification can you provide for that assertion? Has that been agreed by the community, or is it just your own preference? Yes, you can invoke WP:IAR to go against guidelines, but you need to provide a good reason to do so - and repeating 'consistency' over and over is not sufficient. I don't need to provide arguments on why things should be in accordance with the guidelines. You're the one seeking to ignore them - it's your responsibility to provde a justification for your actions. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Jersey Devils Roster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've reverted your edit again, because your edit causes the link to Marc Savard links to Dash. Placing an em dash in the "dab" section will cause this. See for yourself for more info. Thanks! → The Pancake of Heaven! 09:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Pancake of Heaven!: Thanks for the heads up. Didn't really see that em dash character is in the wrong place. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem! :) → The Pancake of Heaven! 09:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

July 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that real wikipedia vandalize comes in you action. You don't have the ground and right to discriminate argumented point of view. People have right to know history widely. – craft37by (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Craft37by: What you add is clear Litvinist POV which doesn't belong here or anywhere else. All those "historians" you mentioned are nothing more than Belarusian nationalists who try to take all GDL history and make it Belarus's own history. You also didn't add any reliable sources to back it all up and that's another reason this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. All those maps are also historically inaccurate, which again justifies its removal. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: That is also similar that article written only from modernd-Lietuva historic angle.

For example, please let me know historical sources where you can find knights name as Mindaugas, Gediminas? Or that modern lithuaninan that was used by "magority" people. But not the modern book mention it, but original hronic, at least one example? Without this references the idea which you trying to prove is just a fairytale. Waiting the grounded answer from you. Thanks. – Craft37by (talk)

@Craft37by: I can say the same about you. Ruthenian and Belarusian languages are different. Nowhere in the article it is stated that Lithuanian language was spoken by majority people. Furthermore, there's no mention about "modern" Lithuanian language which doesn't really exist, because apart from grammar, the language stayed the same for many years. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sabbatino:

Ruthenian language very similar to belarusian and it showed in chronics written in next centuries. Ruthenian even called also as old-belarusian and old-ukraninan. So it's not the same case.
We can say that majority people spoken Ruthenian cause it used in law and also called as 'prosta mova' ('simple language'). I call modern-lihuaninan as modern because I know the source when lithuanian language mentioned as ruthenian: "For instance, duke Keystut in 1351 commanded the Lithuanian army in the Belarusian language. In a Latin -language source (Hungarian 'Dubickaya' chronicles) it was referred to as Litvanian (lithwanice). Keystut's call in Belarusian "The ox is our discords. God is with us!" was not only correctly transliterated by the witness ("rogachina rozne nachy gospanany" — which is clearly the aforementioned phrase in Belarusian), but also correctly translated into Latin ("cornutum ...iuramentum per nos ...Deus ad nos"), thus corroborating the case." Can you inform us when firstly nowdays lithuaninan language was named?
You want statement sourced? Well, I've posted the link to M.Ermalovich book in belarusian language. This is no enough? But article using same historical books despite original chronicles exist.
You avoided knights name argumentation. Article mentioned Vitautas, Midaugas and so on. Again, if you want to save wikipedia truthful, please name the original chronicles when knights named this way.

Without this few proofs there will be obvious that article falsificated. – Craft37by (talk)

@Craft37by:

Belarusian and Ruthenian are different laguanges just like Lithuanian and Latvian are different languages.
In those chronicles Lithuanians were called as "Litvanians", because Latin alphabet doesn't have the letter V and the V symbol means letter U (v = /uː/ = u).
Only Slavic lands spoke Ruthenian, but that doesn't mean majority. Lithuanian language was always the spoken language and just because there are very few written documents, it doesn't mean that language didn't exist at that time. You do know that Lithuanian language is older than Ruthenian, right?
Just mentioning Ermalovich's book is not enough, because you need to specify the pages that have those statements. But you can skip this, because most of Belarusian historians write nationalistic history and try to erase Lithuanians from everywhere and claim all history as their own.

P.s. You're trying to push nationalistic POV which doesn't belong here and for that reason I'm not willing to discuss anything with you. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

McDermott

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Saw your edit summary at Doug McDermott. FWIW, the Bulls' website shows Wade in a Heat No. 3 jersey.[1] In any event, I'm not frequent patroller of jersey numbers.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I wasn't referring to the article about Wade's signing. This clearly shows him in #3 jersey. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Saw that also, but could that he a Heat uni too ... same colors, but I'm not a jersey expert. No worries.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: That's not a Heat jersey. Why would Bulls promote another team's merchandise? Just from the font that says "Wade" it is clear that is a Bulls' jersey. Number's angling and font's coloring are also different from the Heat's. – Sabbatino (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mo Williams

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't own the page, I don't revert EVERY SINGLE EDIT on the page. Then, that'll be me trying to own the page. Mo Williams was previously included on the page and you deleted him, because he wasn't talked about on the media like the "Big 3" were. Even though others contributed to the victory. WE CAN'T EDIT THE ARTICLES BASED ON THE MEDIA, because if we do that than the articles will turn into a one-sided opinion based article, rather than a professional article. I ALWAYS aim for a professional article, unlike you.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Science in Lithuania page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ke an: You didn't cite any reliable sources and the tone of whole paragraph isn't encyclopedic. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ice hockey place of birth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sabbatino - you mentioned in a recent discussion an example where "a player's city or country of birth is changed, for example, from Montreal, QC, CAN to Montreal, Quebec, Canada and only Quebec is linked" (my emphasis). That's unlikely to be something I would have done intentionally - just a mistake. If you'd let me know where you found it. I'll take and look and fix it. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: It was just an example. However, here I had to correct it. Although, this edit de-linked players' nationality in the Draft picks section. We only not link the country if it is repeated in the same table. Moreover, Weber's birthplace was also changed from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Pittsburgh in the Final Roster section. In ice hockey articles we list City, State or City, Country. Same pattern should be used for everyone and MOS:OVERLINK shouldn't be applied everywhere, because tables and prose are different things. I also corrected this, because diacritics shouldn't be used in NHL articles per WP:NCIH (I saw more edits by you that did this). – Sabbatino (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference errors on 2 August

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Hapoel Jerusalem B.C. page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Winnipeg Jets Hall of Fame

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The fact that the first inductees played for the original franchise is immaterial - if the current franchise wishes to honor them in this way that's their right, and it's still noteworthy. The fact that it was unsourced is also not a big deal - it took me literally 30 seconds to find two sources and add them to the article. We don't have to delete everything that lacks a source, especially when they are so easy to find. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: Those players aren't inducted yet, but I won't object to it. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reno Bighorns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sabbatino - Why did you wipe out the notable players section on the Reno Bighorns page? This diff There are several notable players in that section - Danny Green, Hassan Whiteside, Jeremy Lin. Why not improve the page so that it matches other D-League teams. For example, the Iowa Energy have a nicely formatted Players section. E bailey (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@E bailey: You should better raise this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. These lists don't bring any relevant information apart from WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Many of those players played 1 or 2 games in the NBA D-League before returning to the NBA or some of them were assigned to some NBA D-League team, but didn't even play a game for them before being recalled. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How am I making disruptive edits and what did I do to be threatened with a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can you please explain to me how I made "disruptive edits" and why you threatened me with a block?Bluesangrel (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: Firstly, I didn't threaten nobody as that's just the text of that warning template. If you have a problem about such messages then complain to Wikipedia's staff for writing those words in the warning templates. Moreover, consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#"Current team" listed on Olympic rosters is that only the last team for which a player played must be listed. For example, Kevin Durant didn't play a single game for Golden State Warriors and that's why Oklahoma City Thunder is listed. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not make any disruptive edits, and I did not know some editors here wanted it to be only last club played for. There is no way to know something like that, unless you were one of the few editors that was reading the basketball wiki project. Since it is not listed anywhere on the roster templates, and since it just says "club", and not "last club played for". There is no reason to send me a message that I am making disruptive edits and can be blocked for it, when I was not. You could just please kindly have explained that it was supposed to be last club played for. And I looked, and saw numerous other editors had the same problem, because as the templates are, it clearly makes it as if the current club should be listed. Anyway, I started a new discussion about this at the basketball project, because this is confusing, and a lot of people will be updating the clubs, and we don't need anyone blocked over something like this.Bluesangrel (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: How about reading the article's history before making edits? I wasn't the only user that linked to the consensus when reverting. Moreover, "There is no way to know something like that, unless you were one of the few editors that was reading the basketball wiki project" is not the reason to do something contrary to the consensus. You should make some research before editing something or ask other users involved in that particular article/template/etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It is extremely confusing how it is, listing club of the player, but only allowing a club the player used to play for (if they moved to a new team already). Someone updating to the current club, should not be getting any messages that they made disruptive edits. Not when the method being used is that confusing. Which is why I started a discussion about it at the basketball project.Bluesangrel (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bluesangrel: So discuss it there. My talk page is not a forum/complaints board. And I'll repeat it again – look at the page's history before making edits as it can save everyone's time. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Las Vegas NHL Team

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Again, you really need to stop removing easily sourced information, especially when allowing it to remain presents absolutely zero harm. Those two facts you removed from Las Vegas NHL Team took me all of 15 seconds to find appropriate references to support, including the team announcement you mentioned in your deletion summary. Considering that both of these hires happened within the past couple of days, that means the CN tags were also only there for brief periods of time. Show some patience of you're not willing to locate sources yourself. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: There were no team announcements when I removed it. So you can stop trying to be the "I'm always right" guy and think before writing. It's not your article and I can remove content if there are no sources. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey sure, you can remove any content you like, but it's pretty frustrating when your reasons for doing so are factually incorrect - a) it wasn't "speculation" and b) one of the references I used was posted on the team website 3 days ago and you removed the information earlier today. The wiki guideline on use of the Citation Needed tag at WP:CITENEED also suggests the following: If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. In the process, you may end up confirming that the statement needs to be edited or deleted, or you may find an excellent citation yourself. Either of these outcomes is better than a tag that goes nowhere. Removing harmless information that was tagged only days before certainly makes that tag go nowhere - the entire point of that tag is to encourage use of sources, not as a weapon to remove information. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: I only rely on team's announcements. All other sources (CBC, NBC, Sportsnet.ca, etc.) will be removed and if the heading has Report/Reported: or something like that then it will be instantly removed. You or anybody else, for that matter, can't judge my edits. It's my personal preference to remove unsourced content. Of course there are times when I just miss something, but I couldn't find anything when I was searching this morning and that's why it got removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. "All other sources (CBC, NBC, Sportsnet.ca, etc.) will be removed" - what? You are going to remove news sources from the article and only use primary sources (the team's website)? For whatever reason? Echoedmyron (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: What I meant was that if article's name will start with Report: Oilers hire Gretzky as their GM then it will be removed until the team makes an announcement. But if the article's heading will say Oilers hire Gretzky as their GM then it will stay. Is that clear? In my book report is the same as rumor. You can stop bothering yourself with this, because this leads nowhere. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I never said anything about removing things that were mere reports, that was you; and you said it separately from your contention that only primary sources were acceptable, which was why I challenged it. I totally agree that reports and rumors are not worthy of use as sources. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Echoedmyron: I didn't say that you mentioned anything about removing mere reports, but I'm glad that you finally understand what I meant. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference errors on 9 August

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Darkthrone page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of National Hockey League arenas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see you have reverted my changes again, even though they bring the articles closer to MoS guidelines. In your edit summary, you said "This has been discussed and none of the users approve this". Where was this discussed. and what other users were involved? The only discussion I'm aware of took place on your talk page, where you and I were the only participants, and you just kept repeating your belief that consistency is more important than anything else, and refused to consider any other view. Where and when did this discussion with other users take place? What other users are you claiming to speak for, and on what grounds? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: Guideline is not a rule. It's just an idea of how something should look like and shouldn't be blindly applied everywhere. Many of these guidelines are old and should be updated, because what was good in 2012, isn't the same in 2016. This is the discussion that I'm referring to and 2 more users disagreed with your changes. Take your matters there and don't pollute my talk page. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York links

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. Please don't do this, as we are working on a consensus-based project to fix incorrect links to New York. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: You're the one that should stop doing this, because [[New York]] is the correct link for the state. I know that not long ago the state's article was moved to [[New York (state)]], but after the review and discussions it was moved back to its current name and until it gets moved again, I'll be removing any links that are incorrect. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There has been a community discussion resulting in a consensus to point these links to New York (state) pending cleanup of incorrect links currently pointed to that title. Please conform your conduct to the standards of the community. Thanks. bd2412 T 21:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: If you're talking about some consensus then point me to it. Otherwise it's just a rubbish claim without any links to back it up. Moreover, there's no need to create incorrect links to a page if it isn't being moved to that name. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links. So far, we've fixed over 9,000 incorrect links (out of over 75,000 total links) using this methodology. We have approximately 22,500 links left to check. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rexall Place

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you have a reference for the date Skyreach Centre officially became Rexall Place? The article is lacking in references for its previous name changes. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@117Avenue: So far I found this and this that mention venue's renaming in 2003. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

And I found this that says the name changed immediately on November 20, 2003. 117Avenue (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I doubt you found this, because this is the source that is used in the arena's article. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't actually read the article before posting here, my bad. So I did find it, by Googling skyreach centre renamed rexall place. 117Avenue (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:Dominion Bilbao Basket.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Dominion Bilbao Basket.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goaltenders

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to tell you. I went to those preseason games and watched them on tv. I'm putting the starting goaltenders. Laurikenen only played the 3rd period and so did Ellis. ShaedonShergill (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@ShaedonShergill: That doesn't mean anything, because OFFICIAL SOURCES are the only things that matter here. They list Laurikainen as the goaltender that got the win and it doesn't matter for how many minutes he played. This official game summary shows my point. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:HC Ambri-Piotta (logo).png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:HC Ambri-Piotta (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:Florida Panthers logo 2016.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Florida Panthers logo 2016.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elton Brand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding this comment – I am well aware that he retired once before. However, I tweaked the infobox as I was under the impression that is not how it is typically done. Is it typical to have that style for players who retire then come out of retirement? I thought it would be 1999–2016 as he simply prolonged his career, no need to highlight his first retirement. It's not like he came out of retirement three years later – it was for five months. This user perhaps also feels the same way. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Here's an example. He might be more known and it was after 2 years, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the same situation. Brand officially retired in 2015 and decided to get back in January 2016, so I think that should be reflected in the text and in the infobox. I would understand if he was in the same situation as Ray Allen, but he wasn't. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough (and fair example). DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference errors on 21 October

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Yogi Ferrell page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving of word former.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hopefully the moving of the word former like here isn't something you have done often as it is grammatically incorrect. Canadian and ice hockey are adjectives describing goaltender. So the former belongs before Canadian. She is a retired Canadian ice hockey goaltender, it does not mean she is a retired Canadian, putting former after Canadian makes the sentence clunky and hard to read as it separates the idea of being Canadian from that of being an ice hockey goaltender, while when you combine them it flows better. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: This practice is accepted across various sports (basketball and soccer to name some). I can't tell on how many ice hockey articles that was changed, but I rarely edit this part and usually just deal with the infobox, categories or contracts. However, after making some research, just as I write this, it looks like this practice – a Canadian former "something" player (or similar) – is in fact wrong. Per this book and this book, it is clear that this practice is grammatically incorrect. Thanks for pointing it out. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup no worries, just didn't want someone to point it out after you had done a tonne of them causing you to have to do a bunch of work fixing. Yeah I wouldn't be surprised it shows up elsewhere on the site. Athlete pages in general are often in a sorry state when it comes to such things because they I think they don't attract as many views from non-sports specific editors. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Djsasso: I don't remember who, but there were about two people (I think?) on WikiProject:NBA who were telling everyone that "an American former something player/athlete" is correct. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Tortorella

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I see you changed USA back to U.S. in John Tortorella's info box and eliminated the WP link. I'm not sure I understand why as that doesn't seem to conform with other similar articles here and here. Can you provide a link to the WP policy or consensus that you're using for this? Thanks. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yojimbo1941: Per MOS:NOTUSA – Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation, or as part of a proper name (Team USA) or formal code (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes and FIFA country codes). – Sabbatino (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the link.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Viking metal FAC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I nominated Viking metal as a FAC. If you would like to comment, please do so. Thanks,--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Raiders Ownership

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Raiders website can say whatever it wants. It's not factual. And Ive added a reference that explain the ownership structure. The did you read the references already listed?

Carol Davis is the owner, I can upload the proof if I could figure out how to send a screen shot of the legal documents.

Or I can just email you them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riff.jdp (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Riff.jdp: Just because you have "official" documents (I really doubt that) it doesn't mean anything as every source on the internet list Mark Davis as the owner of the Raiders'. Even during the TV broadcasts it is said by the announcers that Mark is the owner. Here are several examples – 1, 2, 3 and 4. And all these sources are from 2016. So instead of blindly inserting the "supposedly correct" owner try to discuss at Talk:Oakland Raiders or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League (asking at the project would be better). – Sabbatino (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve Kerr article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I didn't see the IP's edit [2] that caused the mess in the first place. You're right; it should be six up front in the lead paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Sabbatino. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:2017 Final Four Logo.png

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:2017 Final Four Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP Overlinks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for explaining the reverts and providing a link to the policy.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference errors on 8 December

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Robert Griffin III page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.