User talk:Slysplace/Archives/2009/January

Speedy deletion of Atomic Punk (Van Halen song)

A tag has been placed on Atomic Punk (Van Halen song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you.--Almax999 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1990 NHL Entry Draft edits

Just looking at some recent edits you made 1990 NHL Entry Draft. I'm a little confused as to why you've gone and spelt out the positions. It's been widely accepted not to spell them out, but rather to link the first use of the position to the appropriate article and use the abbreviations C, LW, RW, D, and G. The work you've done on the draft pages has been awesome, but this one just didn't seem to make sense. All it does it add unnecessary text to the article. It seems like you did this to quite a few articles. I'll give you some time to respond, but I'd really like to go through and put back the abbreviations. I'll let you respond first though. Thanks. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my concern, if there is a separate column for positions, then I agree it should be spelt out. But for the time being, the articles without that column really shouldn't have them spelt out. But then again, I could see what you're doing as sort of the first step in making that column. I'm actually a big fan of your guideline draft. I'm confusing myself lol, maybe you should just ignore me. I think I'll just go through the '90 draft article and implement your guidline. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In discussions in the project discussion group I suggested a few changes, all of which you see in the new guideline draft. I began implementing those changes starting with the 1963 NHL Amateur Draft and have completed all drafts through 1983 including table references. I'm currently working on 1984 & 85. The separate column for positions looks better without abbreviations ^{which has also been popular in other sports related articles}. My personal opinion is if a non-fan were to click his way to a draft page and see Mario Lemieux (C) they may wonder what (C) is but not necessarily click upon it. I used AWB to run through the entire draft series and do some of the cleanup and to reduce the hand editing later. One of those changes I had AWB make was spelling out the positions. In hind sight your probably correct that they look better abbreviated until I convert the tables, however now I have your assistance in the cleanup work by you implementing the new guideline. Now if only we could get the IP Editor who has been identifying All stars and hall of famers to cite some ref's Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I do have one concern with the All-Star and HHOF highlights. We should have a corresponding symbol, such as † and * so that color is not the only identifier. How we have † go with the yellow All-Star highlighting, and the asterix go with the HHOF highlighting. Aside from that, there should be an additional colour and symbol for HHOF members who were all-stars as well. I don't mean to sound picky, just trying to think of things that would come up in FLC. Might as well address them now while we can. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Players name is properly referenced as a HHOF or All-Star the reference itself suffices as an additional identifier other than the color. In other words a <ref>^{REF TEXT HERE}</ref> next to the player name would place a small numeral to the right of the players name (and validate the claim that he was All-Star or HHOF provided the ref was valid). Further more highlights of that players induction could also be ref'd under the HOF section of the page and also referenced. My experience with the NFL Draft pages has taught me that FL/C is very hard to obtain in draft series pages. To elaborate I've also noticed that FL status is short lived in older dated articles/lists due to more and more media coverage in the most recent years as well as far more verifiable resources. FL is a pipe dream at best for these old timers. I've said this before in other draft discussions but I'll say it again anyway. Sometimes editing just to make sure our elders heros have a voice is reward enough. It may be 15 min of fame for some and for others it's the respect they did not receive with a 6 figure salary common place in todays player market. Encyclopedic? Maybe, Important? Probably not. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 01:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)