User talk:BRMo/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:BRMo. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Walter Johnson controversy

Hi BRMo!

I thought I'd let you know what's going on. Since you seem to be heavily involved in baseball articles, you may wish to weigh in with your own opinions.

A clueless British administrator took it upon herself, in the dead of night, without putting the idea up for discussion, to move the page of the greatest pitcher in the history of baseball from Walter Johnson to Walter Johnson (baseball) and make his former page a disambiguation page with Sir Walter's and six nobodies on it.

When some of us Yanks called the ludicrousness of the move to her attention, BrownHairedGirl's justification was:

...Because it seemed to me that the baseball player was not an order of magnitude more significant than all the other Walter Johnsons combined...

That's utter nonsense, though! As another reader commented:

In Nov and Dec, the baseball player's article was viewed about 10-12 times as often as all 6 other Walter Johnsons combined.

Now we're going through Wikipedia's processs of a "Requested Move" to try to put things back as they were. If you, and a few dozen friends, would like to tell them what you think, here's where to go:

Talk:Walter Johnson#Requested_move

Thank you! DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (a SABR member since 1976)

Rogan article

Yes, I do have the book you seek, and in fact used it for reference just a day or two ago. Let me know what you need. -- Couillaud (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It may take awhile. There are 20 different citations to check and confirm. I hope I can do it some time this weekend. -- Couillaud (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please let me know. Also, is there a reason Rogan's California Winter League stats aren't in the article? I can pull them up if it helps. -- Couillaud (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. You might want to re-edit it to make it more consistent with the others (colors for the asterisks, switch batting and pitching to match NeL career, switching the "-" or a "/" in the seasons. I didn't notice that when adding the data. --- Couillaud (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the Dixon references cover both the prior sentence, but also those that precede without citation.

One caveat is that Dixon's book has no footnotes or endnotes itself, one of the issues for which he has been criticized. Some of the information that Phil gives in the book cannot be confirmed independently, though none of it in this article that I could tell. A new reprint of the Rogan book is due out this year from McFarland, which might include endnotes, but it's going to be in the $40-50 neighborhood, leaving it on my very long-term low-priority wish list.

-- Couillaud (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

New subproject on Negro league baseball

I just got around to seeing this, and I would love this. If you are still interested, I would love to participate. I think that information on the Negro leagues (mainly stats) is so mixed around that it would be really useful to put it in a centralized place. It would also be a nice challenge. Let me know if you're still interested because I sure am. Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up has been needed on Negro leagues articles for some time. You have been doing some very good work so far, but there aren't many like you with an interest in the field. I'm looking forward to helping and whipping up support from other users. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ChiUnionGiants 1905 small.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ChiUnionGiants 1905 small.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Negro Leagues Players

We discussed this long ago, but I finally sat down and divided the list into eras, using the general guidelines we'd discussed earlier. Please take a look and make whatever changes you feel are warranted. -- Couillaud (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - it was one of those things on my "to do" list that I never got around to. I'll take a look. BRMo (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame

On April 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for José Rodríguez (infielder)

On May 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José Rodríguez (infielder), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

'42 CWS

I left a response to your question on the Talk Page. If you have further questions, I'll be happy to help, having heavily researched that series. Congratulations on your new "Reviewer" status; however, I can't tell whether the icon for it looks like CBS or Big Brother. :-) --- Couillaud (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Paige

FYI, the Ribowsky book, while very entertaining, is not thought of highly by many other Negro Leagues authors, because Ribowsky gave very few sources, and many of his stories are unique to his book. Both he and Dixon have done major books on the Negro Leagues without giving sources, and therefore many of their best anecdotes cannot be confirmed. You may want to say "according to Mark Ribowsky" when he's the only source. -- Couillaud (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not surprised. I'm sure the same could be said of other books, such as Riley's biographical encyclopedia (except that Riley has so much stuff that you can't find elsewhere). When editing any article, and the Paige article in particular, I generally try to confirm important content from at least two sources, which for Paige often means Tye and Ribowsky. I know Ribowsky isn't perfect, but if Tye (who's more careful with his sources) says the same thing and cites someone other than Ribowsky, then I feel more comfortable with its accuracy. I suppose I could ignore Ribowsky entirely, but Tye's book isn't perfect either, so I think it helps to balance the two of them. BRMo (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Springfield Cardinals

Thanks for writing up the entry for the Springfield (IL) Cardinals and for (perhaps, it's been 4+ years) preserving a few phrases from what I'd added to the entry for the current Springfield Cardinals (AA). And I concur regarding the importance of such articles to those interested in local history.

Best Regards,

Dubhloaich (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. That was a fun article to write. BRMo (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Duncan (baseball)

Excellent research on Jim Duncan (baseball). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I always hope that an AfD nomination can lead to some improvement to an article. BRMo (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heebthong Krissada

In this AFD, you wrote, "I never assumed that no articles exist on the subject. Rather, I claim that an article that doesn't cite its sources doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons, which requires that we 'be very firm about the use of high quality sources.' Assumptions about sources that may or may not exist aren't sufficient to meet that standard." You may want to have a look at Wikipedia:Notability, one of the bedrock guidelines of the site, which includes the following: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." As such, you may want to revise your thinking when commenting on future AFD nominations. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't revised my thinking yet. I still don't think that the proponents of keeping the article adequately demonstrated that the available sources meet the standard of "significant coverage" that's required by both WP:N and WP:ATH. But I was on the losing side of that AFD, and I accept the consensus decision. I'll note that the current version of the article is still in pretty poor shape. If you could demonstrate that the article's text could be expanded to perhaps a 300-word stub that is fully verified by citing reliable sources, I would gladly admit that I was wrong. BRMo (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)