User talk:TempDog123/Archive 1

Archive 1

Phillies rivalries

The Phillies do not have a rivalry with the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Pirates rivalry is dubious at best and not current in any event. — KV5 • Talk • 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, TempDog123. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mets-Yankees

I understand wanting to link the histories and am totally in favor of it. However, the way the sentence was written doesn't refer to the history itself. If it was re-written to the aspect of "[History of the New York Giants (NL)|the Giants had spent x number of years in NY] before moving to SF" then that makes sense. Arnabdas (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I addressed the question you had on my page right here. If we are referring to a franchise, we have to link the franchise. If we are talking about certain events while in NY, such as "The New York Giants have had a successful history. During their time in New York", the team won several championships."

Does that make sense? Thanks for your enthusiasm! Arnabdas (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There aren't any wikipedia guidelines as per what I know of so therefore I just did what seems to make sense. Of course if consensus deems otherwise (with or without me changing my mind) then obviously we would go according to that. To me, teams play teams, so when a team is mentioned we are talking about the franchise itself. I see it much so like the proverbial apples and oranges comparison. For example, if the New York Yankees played the Brooklyn Dodgers, we would not be linking New York Yankees to History of the New York Yankees. That's why it doesn't make sense to me to link one team's history against another's. This can all be avoided if we make clear statements, as I wrote above, and then not link the teams or histories anywhere further down in the article (which I believe is wikipedia custom if not policy). The issue pretty much only affects a handful of teams (Dodgers, Giants, Twins, Rangers, Nationals, Brewers, Braves, A's). Out of those, I think only the Giants and Dodgers have separate history articles for their times in their previous areas. Arnabdas (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK I've seen what they've done. I didn't know they finally addressed the issue. I think it gets more complicated with the rivalry articles of the Giants-Yankees and Dodgers-Yankees. The Giants rivalry was primarily in NYC while the Dodgers rivalry continued cross country. I just hope that we can develop a consistent policy for both. Consensus may overrule me though which is fine. I want to thank you for your cooperation and good faith attempts to work together with me for a mutual solution. It's valued by me definitely. Arnabdas (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Celtics-Lakers rivalry

Many of my fixes are correct, namely the Glen Davis link (I didn't realized it is a disambiguation page, so it should be fixed), use of last name when referring to people, capitalizing only the first word in section titles, the conditional past tense... I don't think I use present tense at all, although I may have overlook that and make some mistakes. Also, I should have made the edit in each section instead of the whole article, that allows you to revert my edit easily. I will reintroduce my edits for each section and then you could edit to fix/improve my edit without reverting everything. Sounds good?—Chris!_c/t 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I might do the review. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey T-dog. I have started the 2nd review. I am about 1/3 of the way through the prose and I have some concerns about the use of WP:Peacock words. It has been in the queue for a while so I would be willing to give you a chance to respond to the comments I have so far. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that review! It's been a few months so I'd pretty much forgotten about it. Things have gotten busy with my job and personal life, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to this. Not sure how things works with respect to a GA article nomination, but many of your suggestions seem fine to me and I'd invite you to make them. If editing the article means that you are then disqualified from granting it GA status, perhaps you could make the changes, renominate it, and let someone else handle the review. My ultimate concern here is the betterment of the article more than the GA status and I've worked about as hard as I can to improve it, which I think it has been. TempDog123 (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is the major problem with having such a long backlog. I am hoping to knock the old sporting section off so nominators don't have to wait so long. You have improved the article greatly, but there is still quite a bit of work to do to get it to GA status. The best I can do is give it a good copy edit, following roughly the the comments I have made already. I won't be able to pass it, but if you get time in the future you can renominate it. Either way I hope you stick around enough to contribute bits and pieces here and there. AIRcorn (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The backlog is a bit of a problem. I am hoping to knock the sports one back a bit

Proposed deletion of Cardinals–Royals rivalry

The article Cardinals–Royals rivalry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article about a dubious "rivalry"

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cardinals–Royals rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cardinals–Royals rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was kept. Now it's on you to actually use those sources to improve the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Cardinals–Royals rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cardinals–Royals rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardinals–Royals rivalry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kansan (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

NYJ rivalries

I'm not trying to start a fight here but "ballooning out of control" is extreme wording considering there were only two rivalries you removed so to insinuate the section was turning into the New England Patriots rivalry section was unnecessary. Furthermore, the Raiders section was listed under "Historical rivalries" before you removed it because it was just that with meetings such as the Heidi Game, Al Davis' clear dislike for the team and their modern playoff matches. The Colts rivalry, I feel, has some considerable history to it given their Super Bowl meeting and their recent contests though getting rid of that is a bit more understandable. Point being, it would have been nice if you could have discussed it on the TP first before getting heavy handed with the backspace button. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1