User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2015/November

Might be time to look at expanding notability guidelines for college coaches

Based on the current template discussions. The idea of comparing head coaches to professors is cute but silly. Head coaches aren't necessarily notable in every sport, but pretty close to it in the ones that get heavy press coverage. Probably need to think through what's reasonable for ADs as well. Rikster2 (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Yeah, that's a little off-base, especially for Division I head coaches for football and men's basketball. I guess you've been following the TfD for the navboxes of the SJSU athletic directors and women's basketball coaches. The problem, as I see it, is that you simply cannot have a single presumption of notability for Division I ADs and head coaches, across different sports, different colleges, and different eras. There is a pending AfD right now for a Franklin & Marshall head football coach from the late 1800s, for whom the article creator couldn't even reliably verify the subject's initials, and we're arguing whether he's notable based on two or three one-sentence mentions in 1893 newspaper accounts (hint: in the absence of other coverage not yet in evidence, he's not notable). In the present day, the coverage that head football coaches receive at the big-time Division I schools is 100 times that which the head men's golf coach receives. In 2015, some Division I athletic directors at big-time Division I programs have an almost celebrity-like status (e.g., Jeremy Foley at Florida), while others remain relatively obscure. The reason most ADs were notable 50 years ago was most of them were also the head football coach (that changed for most programs during the 1960s). I think the best we can say with a measure of intellectual integrity is that almost 100% of Division I head coaches for football and men's basketball are notable, a majority of Division I ADs are notable, and the notability of other coaches, in other sports, especially in the lower NCAA divisions, varies widely. Because of the widely divergent measures of notability across sports and different eras, in my opinion, the whole thing needs to remain back-stopped by the general notability guidelines. I've built out articles for national championship coaches in "minor" sports like golf, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that finding in-depth independent sources for even those who have won multiple NCAA championships can be damn difficult. Beyond the head coaches for Division I football and men's basketball, I think bestowing carte blanche notability for all coaches for all college sports would be a mistake.

I'm willing to explore this further, but for any specific notability guideline for college coaches, I think it would need to focus on Division I football and men's basketball to be intellectually defensible. Otherwise, we risk conferring de facto automatic notability on persons for whom there really is no significant coverage in independent sources, thus defeating the whole concept of notability as a filter for content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't expect a blanket notability policy, but hardly any other subject is black and white either. I think any top-level (ie NCAA division 1) football or men's basketball head coach can comfortably be in a notability guideline so long as the caveat that they still need to meet GNG is there. We have to navigate this with MLB and NFL players as it is today. What that would mean is that schools who moved up to D1 might have coaches who actually don't meet the guideline (such as the head basketball coach at Longwood University when they were division II) and some who would. At least that is a starting point. I haven't looked at enough ADs to know how universally notable they are. They generally are for bigger programs, but after that who knows. Rikster2 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be receptive to something like a NSPORTS specific notability guideline with a presumption of notability for head coaches for football and men's basketball in Division I FBS, Division I-A, NCAA University Division, or their equivalents for earlier eras. That should not retroactively confer notability on coaches from different eras when a now-Division I program was Division II or NCAA College Division or the equivalent. The devil, of course, will be in the details of how it's written, and I think everyone who's looked at it has recognized that. The NCAA was only formed in 1905 or 1906, and operated as an all-in-one "single division" through World War II, after which it recognized "small college" and "large university" standards. As I recall, one of the breakpoints was which colleges could afford to offer regulated grants-in-aid for their student-athletes, which was originally intended to curtail certain big-time football programs from paying their players under the table and thus level the playing field, so to speak. After World War II, the Ivy League schools went in a different direction, too, although they maintained the pretense of being major sports programs until the 1960s/70s.

During my time on Wikipedia, we've operated as if there were a de facto presumption of notability for modern era Division I football and basketball coaches, and that has been largely unchallenged, even by editors who do not regularly edit college sports articles. That said, we have also had a minority of college sports editors who have repeatedly and vociferously argued that all head coaches should be presumed notable (e.g., the 1890s Franklin & Marshall football coach), and I would not support any SNG proposal that goes that far or ambiguously reinforces that minority position. I'm willing to take a crack at a draft version if you want to help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree and will help. I have actually tried to point out to the CFB project that ya'll have too many small college coach infoboxes - but have had people argue that ALL football coaches meet GNG. I fight against these in CBB - unless most of the head coaches in a program meet GNG I don't create the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in creating CFB coaching succession navboxes for the Division I programs, including being largely responsible for the introduction of the present format (including the full common names and tenures), but I stepped back when the build-out was largely completed for the Division I FBS teams. Other editors aggressively pursued navbox creation for FCS teams and below, and I think they pushed the notability limits for many of those lower-division teams, which led to aggressive stub creation for a lot of old-timey, small-college coaches who fall into the same category as the aforementioned Franklin & Marshall guy. If you cannot provide a first name, birth date, birth place and alma mater for a college coach, he may not be notable. Hell, I had a deuce difficult time getting the biographical basics for a couple of the early Gators football coaches, and that's a pretty well documented program. So, yes, you and I are on the same page, but I am wary of our effort becoming a Trojan horse for an end-run around the existing GNG standard. We will need to be pretty clear that GNG backstops the SNG, and the SNG is limited to head coaches for specific sports, for specific NCAA divisions, for specific eras. If nothing else, a new SNG would eliminate unnecessary AfDs for stub articles about Division I football and basketball coaches.

I am curious to hear what Jrcla (some small college perspective) and Jweiss (big picture) might have to say on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer, you haven't described the chronology quite right here. The massive stubbing for college football coaches goes back to 2007 and 2008. Many of the coaching succession navboxes, for schools big and small, date back that far as well; e.g., Template:Wabash Little Giants football coach navbox was created in early 2008. And most of, if not all, of the FBS ones existed in an early form by then. The effort you describe above, which took place in late 2010 in early 2011, was a standardization and expansion of these navboxes to include full names and dates of tenures, as opposed to just a last name, with a concurrent effort to eliminate redundant succession boxes. From there, this standard navbox form and program of succession box deletion was adopted by other college sports and pro sports leagues like the NFL, CFL, MLB, and NBA. On the issue of the appropriateness of navboxes for small programs, if you look at Template:Franklin & Marshall Diplomats football coach navbox, there may well be a number of coaches there for which we only have a name and a won–loss record, and who are thereby not sufficiently notable. But there are enough guys there who surely are notable to warrant to existence of the navbox. Bull was an All-American and coached at Iowa, Georgetown, and Lafayette. Outland is a Hall of Famer and the namesake of a major award. Chalmers coached at Iowa. Bates coached at Auburn. Hollenback coached at Penn State. Mount Pleasant coached at Buffalo and has a nice article. Draper coached at Texas and William & Mary. Mayser coached at Iowa State. Dickson coached at South Carolina, Lehigh, and Bucknell. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, JW . . . all memory is selective. I have no problem with coach succession navboxes for small programs, provided the navboxes satisfy the minimum standards. That said, here is an excerpt from the first randomly chosen example of the Franklin & Marshall coach stubs:

"Irvine was the head college football coach for the Franklin & Marshall Diplomats located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He held that position for the 1890 season.[1] His coaching record at Franklin & Marshall was 8 wins and 2 losses. As of the conclusion of the 2010 season, this ranks him #15 at Franklin & Marshall in total wins and #2 at the school in winning percentage (.800).[2]"

There are two sources for the article, College Football Data Warehouse and another stats site. Most of the text is filler. In the absence of any significant coverage in reliable sources, the subject clearly fails GNG. What drives me nuts about some of these navboxes is not that they exist when they satisfy the minimum navbox standards (and the F&M box clearly does), but many of these small college coach navboxes were used as a road map to stub out hundreds of non-notable article subjects because some editors were/are simply unable to accept that not all head coaches from different eras are notable. I readily accept that many, if not most of these coaches are notable, either for their tenures at Franklin & Marshall, or for the bigger jobs they moved onto. But notability is not inherited, and the position held does not ensure that individuals are notable. I think we wind up at the same point. That said, Rik's point was not so much about navboxes, but about an expanded NSPORTS specific notability guideline for defined categories of coaches. What are your thoughts there? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That Irvine stub may as was well be signed by @Paulmcdonald:. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . I'm not naming any names. So, do you have any thoughts on the subject for which you were conjured, (i.e., an expanded NSPORTS notability guideline for college coaches), oh, wise one? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

McCobe/McCabe

I will try and look at Andrew Sledd this evening, but I just happened to notice that "W. Gordon McCobe" is probably a typo for "McCabe". Try Googling both names and you'll find multiple sources for the latter spelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

{@Mike Christie: Wow, Mike. Nice catch. Apparently that was a typo in the source manuscript which I carried forward. I have corrected the error based on my own Google search confirming your results. McCabe may be notable per GNG, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think he might; that's actually how I found it -- I was googling him to see if he had enough sources to be notable in his own right, and I got suspicious when nothing came up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Another rivalry article...

NC State– South Carolina football rivalry — Looks like they've done it again... created another rivalry article. This one doesn't even list the series history and only includes one source. They should at least just create them in their sandbox, so they don't keep getting deleted and they can prove a rivalry series is notable. I know nothing about this series, so I'm not convinced it's notable, but those with more knowledge in this area may say otherwise. Corkythehornetfan 18:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Yeah, I saw it. My reaction is the same as yours. I'm Googling it now -- I can't even find NC State, South Carolina and rivalry used in the same sentence, let alone some sort significant coverage of the series as a traditional rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I Googled it as well before coming here. When do you think they'll get the point that they are not notable rivalries?! Corkythehornetfan 19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I'm going to slap a PROD sticker on it when I get the chance, which the creator will remove, of course. Assuming my WP:BEFORE homework confirms what I already suspect about the notability of the "rivary," I expect to file an AfD within 48 hours. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Dirtlawyer, glad you're still around. Some game tonight, huh? And what else is new? Drmies (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, sir, hell of a third quarter. Gators had quite a day too, what with that 9–7 win over mighty Vanderbilt. It would seem that it's Alabama and Florida to play for the SEC championship again; unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope for the Gators in Atlanta. The Gators have already far exceeded expectations on the season. Perhaps they can still pull off an upset of FSU before they're done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• You know I was rooting for FSU today...grumble grumble. I always pull for FL in that game--I started watching football when the head ball coack was still in Gainesville; loved that offensive game. But the SEC championship is never a gimme, and it's still a few games away. Take care! Drmies (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Candidate questions

You recently proposed four excellent questions for Arbs at my talk page. The election process is beginning, and people are starting to post questions to the candidates. I would like to strongly encourage you to post your questions to the candidates, as the candidates declare. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazario Fiakaifonu

I believe you've been involved in potential refinements to the notability standards for Olympic athletes. This AfD provides an interesting test case and could benefit from your sage input. Cbl62 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Yes, the present WP:NOPLYMPICS is problematic if you believe that any specific notability guideline should render the same result better than 90 or 95% of the time as a full GNG analysis. The present proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (Sports) by Collect, a non-sports-editor and BLP gadfly, is no more or less arbitrary than the existing NOLYMPICS standard, but would vastly reduce the number of Olympic athletes who would get a presumption of notability, effectively limiting the presumption to medalists, finalists and semifinalist. I'm not sure what the solution, if any, might be, but trading one arbitrary standard for another, with no evidence in support, is probably not the way to go. The underlying problem, of course, is that a substantial proportion of Olympic Games participants cannot satisfy critical GNG analysis, and contrary to what one might expect intuitively with the ever-growing depth of media coverage, the problem appears to be getting more prevalent in recent years because of the extension of "B" level qualifying standards to athletes from small countries and/or countries who are not traditional powers in particular sports. While the efforts of the IOC and the various international sports bodies to expand participation are laudable, we should by no means automatically accept that all of the athletes in these expanded fields are "notable" merely by virtue of having competed in the qualifying rounds from which most of the top competitors are exempt. In fact, I can provide numerous examples of American athletes who participated in the qualifying heats of earlier Olympics who did not receive anything approaching significant coverage in the American media. There are plenty of non-medalist Olympic athletes who remain relatively obscure figures, even in the modern era. That said, I don't have an easy solution, and the present standard does have the easy advantage of being a bright-line rule.

BTW, I had been following the linked AfD, but had been uncertain what, if anything, to contribute. The present discussion basically boils down to NOLYMPICS as automatic presumption vs. GNG fail. It's kind of a pointless argument as long as a majority (or at least a plurality) treat the Olympics SNG as an irrebuttable presumption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the broader issue appears headed to preserving the presumption for all Olympic athletes. I, too, have believed that a SNG should only be created where there is assurance that something in the 90% range would pass GNG. I do not believe that to be the case with Olympic athletes in all areas of individual and team competition and for every country. It's a tough issue IMO, because a well-crafted SNG creates a presumption that should be difficult to rebut. When an SNG is so broadly framed, it becomes less persuasive and waters down the presumption. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Season standings templates

Do you know why the season standing templates for conferences are being moved to the left of the infobox? Just look at any team season article (2015 FL Gators, 2015–16 FL Gators baskteball) and you'll see. It is quite annoying that it is to the left of the infobox, not to mention it ruins the lead section. I wasn't sure if there was a discussion on it or what. Thanks. Corkythehornetfan 23:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to "butt in" but wow, this looks awful! How did this happen? It doesn't look like there have been any recent edits to either templates. ~ Richmond96 T • C 00:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I fear it may be more than just the "Season standings" templates. Check out Crimson. The "Electric Crimson" box was below the main "Crimson" box before all of this. I've also requested Frietjes to comment as I figured she'd be contacted at some point. Corkythehornetfan 01:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan and Richmond96: for the long and complicated story you can try reading this thread. basically, (1) someone screwed up the backend javascript which injects some css into your stylesheet which added a 'clear:both' to infoboxes, (2) to fix that problem, someone added an override to 'clear:none' to MediaWiki:Common.css, (3) as an end result, any two consecutive infoboxes will nest on the right rather than appearing both flush to the right. to fix it, someone is going to have to address the original bug, or you can turn off javascript in your browser, which will prevent other things from working as they normally do. I was working on some javascript to fight the bad javascript, but stopped working on it since I was certain they would fix the problem soon. Frietjes (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake... Thank you Frietjes! Hope they fix it soon! Corkythehornetfan 01:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan and Richmond96: we should be back to normal. Frietjes (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan and Richmond96: Sorry I wasn't around tonight, guys. Went to dinner and to see the new Bobby Fischer movie. Looks like the css/javascript problem is in the process of being handled, hopefully with more than another temporary fix.

{@Frietjes: Thanks for keeping the wheels on. As always, the sports WikiProjects are grateful for all you do. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest...

...that you consider adding WP:WikiProject_World's_Oldest_People/Article_alerts to your watchlist? Level heads are needed.EEng (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: I'll take a look-see at several more of the pending AfDs today and tomorrow. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheeky request

I've just opened Bessie Braddock peer review, and I'd be delighted if you could spare a few moments to look at it. An interesting lady, who I imagine has no transatlantic recognition at all, but she was quite a figure over here, in her time. No hurry, of course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a cheeky request at all, Brian. I'm getting ready to take a two-hour train trip, so I will try to read the article and make notes while I'm traveling. If I can do that, I'll post my comments later this afternoon or evening. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Two things

Hey, DL. First, thanks for commenting earlier on my talk page. I appreciate it. Secondly, have you found any evidence that NC State–South Carolina football rivalry is notable? If not, I think it needs proposed. We have a couple of editors edit-warring in a template because one believes it is notable, the other doesn't. I know you are a busy guy, so if you don't have time to slap the PROD on the article, I can. Just tell me what I need to say... or just take what you've said on other PRODs for College Rivalry articles. (I'll give you the credit). I'm tired of seeing the edit war and I'm getting ready to warn the users if they don't stop. Thanks. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 01:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been distracted with other things, Corky. Slap the PROD template on it, with a copy-paste of "Subject is not notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, for lack of significant coverage -- as a traditional college football rivalry -- in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Instances of mainstream coverage in reliable sources of this purported "rivalry" are trivial, and any significant coverage of this series as a "rivalry" is only found on fan sites, blogs and other non-reliable or non-independent sources that are not suitable for establishing notability per GNG." I'll endorse the PROD. The creator will remove it, without explanation within 24 hours. I should have completed my GNG review of the "rivalry" by then, and be ready to file an AfD as needed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

10–4, I knew you were busy that's why I didn't bother you with it until an edit war began. It's been PROD with the included (courtesy of: Dirtlawyer1). Thanks again. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No big deal, but

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Users_EEng_and_Ricky81682 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EEng (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks, I saw the ANI discussion already. As the "new guy" in the oldest person AfD discussions, it's probably better if I stay out of the ANI back-and-forth, lest I be drawn in and accused of being part of the anti-oldest-person cabal too. The ANI thread will play out as it should without my input, and I have nothing original to add anyway. I really have no dog in this hunt other than seeing GNG properly enforced. If some of the "oldest person" articles actually have significant coverage, so be it, they will be kept. Most don't, most won't, and most shouldn't. That's my proverbial line in the sand. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree it will play out fine anyway, though your observations on the craziness and zealotry would carry special weight, since as the new guy you can't be accused of being part of the anti-longevity cabal (we don't allow you into that cabal until you're at least 100 years old, you see -- we're a cabal of self-hating oldsters). EEng (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You think these notability debates are single-minded? You should engage with some of the sports editors who think every small college football coach from 1892 is automatically notable, or every purported college sports "rivalry" is notable because the Associated Press once used the word "rivalry" in a 1953 post-game summary. After five years of participating in AfD discussions, I've come to the conclusion that most AfD participants simply do not have a firm grasp of the concept underlying the notability guidelines, and some that do understand the guidelines are using that understanding to wiki-lawyer around them. Sure, we have five million articles on the English Wikipedia, but an awful lot of them would never survive the online version of Britannica for lack of substantial encyclopedic content. And we have a lot of low-grade crap that doesn't even satisfy our own notability and suitability guidelines, but some folks are willing to fight tooth and nail to keep it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

FAC comments

Looks like Andrew Sledd is on the way to becoming featured; I'll hold off on the congratulations till you get the bronze star, but I think you're on the home stretch now. Just a quick comment: I notice you're putting your responses after the comments. Most reviewers are perfectly happy with interspersed replies. Personally I think interspersed replies are easier on the reviewer, and they're certainly easier on you, because you don't have to keep looking up and down between comment and reply, or else copying down the comment so you can reply to it. So feel free to intersperse replies on future reviews if you want to. There's no requirement to do it either way, of course, so if you do prefer the way you're doing it now, that's fine too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Good suggestion, Mike. And I will probably do that on my next FAC. I'm contemplating pushing the John J. Tigert article next, but I still do not have a copy of the definitive Tigert biography that was written by a University of Florida professor 40 years ago. I expect that 500-page tome will provide significant content to expand the existing article.

This FAC review process has not been as difficult as I thought it might be. Of course, a lot of the credit for the relatively smooth FAC review must be given to the work Finetooth, Ruhrfisch, Ironholds and you put into the previous reviews of the article. All four of you can take substantial credit for the present Andrew Sledd article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

316 background

You might get a kick: Looks like some "Do you know who I am" pressure was applied by maybe her to get it originally created.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Weird. Just plain weird. Why would a "Harvard Law educated attorney" give a rat's furry little backside about a Wikipedia article? Am I missing something here? What do you know that I don't? That article was just embarrassing, and we should purge most of the references to it from the Tebow bio article after a discrete interval. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

We can only guess, but anything on WP ends up at/near the top of Google search. I still think it's worth the sentence or two that is currently in the bio (I remember copyediting it ... might have even added it)) It was a big item for a day or two, whether one believes any ties to Him or not. It's amazing the number of bizarre WP:EASTEREGGs I ran into while getting rid of the links after the AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hello! You reverted me on Wikidata and your talkpage said to leave you a message here. In fact, you're wrong ;). wikidata:Q2721206 is about the name in general (given name, family name, etc.), wikidata:Q12020943 is about the family name/surname. See the statements. I corrected the wrong links and I saw you reverted me (and I would have seen it either way because they pop up in errors lists). For Noah the problem is the same: the item is about the name in general and shouldn't be used for family name. For Sylvester, its because it's a mess right now with several names all merged together and we need to delink it before cleaning it up. So I'll redo all my edits and you can talk to me on my Wikidata userpage, thank you. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your user talk page on Wikidata. I have watch-liasted your user talk page, so let's keep the entire conversation there. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Southern Jaguars

Hey, Just letting you know that I have not found any source for the Southern Jaguars' colors. I've looked for a good hour and still haven't found anything. The closest I've found is this page, but they still don't give any information out. Since he was being difficult, I decided to look to see if I could find anything. I fixed the Charleston Southern issues Ejgreen mentioned... which leads to Joeykai putting the Module templates in templates that don't have them listed in the actual Module. Also, check out Module talk:College color/data as we've gone ahead and implemented a couple of things and Bagumba has asked another question pertaining the urls situation. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 05:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Thanks for trying to clean up someone else's mess, Corky. It's unfortunate that a small number of users won;t comply with common-sense procedures to protect the integrity of the module and the articles into which it is tied. I am preparing an RfC that will force the module editing procedures to a head, and I am fairly confident that a majority of sports editors will agree that we need sourcing and procedures for team colors changes and additions that affect dozens, and in some cases hundreds, of articles. The whole point of the module was to get centralized control of the college team colors and impose uniform color schemes for our college sports articles; if anyone can change any set of team colors, without sources and without scrutiny, and get away with edit-warring when asked to comply, then the module fails in its primary purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DL: As Corky has stepped up, and we have more process in place with the refs being visible in docs now, as well as an edit notice in place, maybe an RfC can be put on hold (your call, of course). Corky being a major content contributor on the colors hopefully leads to others following his example. (And hopefully he's not really retiring!)—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The process should not be dependent on any single editor, nor the enforcement dependent on any single administrator. Events of the last 24 hours demonstrate that a handful of users will always flaunt the established procedures and put the burden on others to do the clean-up. Competence and collegial cooperation are required here, and users who have demonstrated they don't have either should not be futzing around with a module that impacts thousands of our articles. Proper module security and editing procedures are really not that complicated, and I think the individual sports editors (as well as the wider WikiProject membership) who have born the burden of cleaning up the team colors mess caused bu vandals, edit-warriors and sock puppets already understand this. As for Corky, of course he has done a bang-up job of guiding compliance in the early phases, and I too hope he remains actively involved in policing the module as well as editing generally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be dependent on any single editor, but the reality in WP and real life is that nothing happens without leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course we need leaders, Bags, but having leaders, good procedures and good security are not mutually exclusive. And good procedures and good security make the work of good leaders that much easier. No leader should have to bear the burden of weak procedures and weak security. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Newspaperarchive

Hey Dirtlawyer, did you get the email with the registration form for Newspaperarchive.com? I'm not seeing a response from you yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I did. I've just been a little overwhelmed the last couple of weeks. I just took a moment and completed the Google sign-up form in the last few minutes. Sorry about my delay in responding, and thanks for your follow-up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks - just waiting for a couple more people before sending in this batch for login creation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi diddly ho!

Question, can you explain article class ratings to me? Crash Underride 06:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Crash. I rated the new Deji Olatoye article as consistently a "Start" article in terms of its quality/present substance, and consistently "Low" in importance for WikiProjects College football, NFL, and Ohio. While importance may often vary from project to project, they generally will have the same quality/substance class for all WikiProject ratings. Each WikiProject has its own criteria, which you may view by clicking on the "quality scale" and "importance scale" links on each of the WikiProject banners on the article talk page. Why don't you take a look-see at the WikiProject quality and importance criteria, and ping me back with any specific questions? Please note that the ratings are subjective in part, and two experienced editors may rate a given article somewhat differently. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, what I was looking for was on the Importance link. lol, I never think to look there. Oh, I also created an new article that could use a rate. Crash Underride 07:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium

This is not an forum shopping, but you can participate in the discussion if you wish. Rather, I am concerned about the move discussion at Talk:Mercedes-Benz Stadium#Requested move 27 November 2015, and am seeking advice on what to do about it. I think the problem will be evident when you read the discussion. I am also concerned that we are dealing with sock- or meat-puppets, or at least a user asking his friends to join in. All of the registered participants supporting the "renaming" are new users, and the IPs have no other edits to speak of. I am trying to assume good faith, but even so, talk pages aren't forums.

I think this needs intervention, but I don't the best place out of the many WP options to go to seek help, preferably from admins. Any ideas? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AS92813. The ducks were strong in that one, I just didn't know who the original quacker(s) were! All blocked. - BilCat (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat: Hey, Bill. Sorry I took so long to respond -- my time during the holiday weekend has not been entirely my own, otherwise I would have weighed in on the proposed move discussion. As a resident of Atlanta, I see no reliable sources for the proposition that the WP:COMMONNAME for the new Atlanta stadium is "Falcons Stadium," and I really don't understand the agenda/motive of the pro-move discussion participants. That said, it appears that the discussion outcome was the correct one, and that administrator Bagumba has specifically recognized the sock-puppetry that was occurring. Looks like Right has prevailed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. Looks like a single-issue type sock farm anyway. Others were watching the move discussion who knew what was happening and reported it, so it all worked out. Thanks for the reply. - BilCat (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee Vols and others colors

Hey, do y'all have an update on this, yet? 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, Corky. Out of sight, out of mind. I'll follow up with Frietjes later tonight. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries! I was looking at something and it made me think of it. I was just checking in, but I also know that there are many other things that have a higher standard than this. I've got other things on my to-do list as well. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 23:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)