User talk:Jayron32/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 September 2006 1.1 Charles Tripp 1.2 Badvertising 1.3 Final state highway naming conventions debate 1.4 NC Roads 1.5 North Carolina Highways Naming Convention 1.6 30/60 1.7 re: BW Expert 1.8 CFB Project 2 October 2006 2.1 American Football 2.2 Football project 2.3 American football 2.4 Biographies 2.5 WP:AGF 2.6 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Garnett 2.7 Mr. Pot, Meet Mr. Kettle 2.8 Undeleted John Nagle 2.9 1932 NFL

[edit] September 2006

[edit] Charles Tripp

Hi, I did the article on UK academic Charles Tripp - notice u put it up for deletion on notability grounds which was fair enough - i added a couple of hopefully reliable sources - the BBC and NRP where's he's been used as an expert - the NRP one is a bit fuller than the BBC one as it is a proper interview with him - audio and transcript. Let me know if that satisfies...! realisis

Glad it qualifies as notable. Thanks for the advice. realisis

[edit] Badvertising

Hi, I created the badvertising article and have since noticed that it is tagged for clean-up and wikification. I wrote it pretty quickly and I know that certain aspects of it aren't encyclopaedic enough yet, but I was wondering what exactly you had in mind re the tagging? thank you. Saccerzd 14:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final state highway naming conventions debate

Jayron32, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NC Roads

Hey, would you like to join the WikiProject: North Carolina State Highways? I noticed you are living in the NC area and are interested in highways. You don't have to commit to anything, just edit where and when you feel like it. To join, just add your name to the project Participant list and if you want, you can add the userbox found also on the project page. --TinMan 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment to your comment about NC 42: You're right. This is an issue that's really tricky. I've been debating with myself what to do with major junctions. I used to list all the major junctions like you have done, but User:SPUI deleted them saying that the infobox was too big and instead combined the major junctions section with the major cities junction. I agree, with the longer state routes, the infoboxes are far too massive on the major junction section. Yet, I don't don't want to leave out some of the more important junctions along the way. As for concurrencies, I'm debating that as well. As a rule of thumb, I've been completely leaving out concurrencies that stretch far outside a city. For example, if a concurrency starts in downtown Townsville and stretches to downtown Cityborough, I would leave that out. Now, if it's a really long concurrency, for say 40 miles, I would list both junctions. We really don't have a standard to follow, so I'm opening a discussion on it at WT:NCSH. I deleted those two routes on NC 42 for four reasons: 1: The shield was there, but the links for those NC highways were missing. 2: For longer routes, NC highways are usually left out unless they are freeways like NC 147. 3: US 421 is far more important than NC 87 in my opinion, but that's very debatable. 4: US 421 and NC 87 and NC 42 have a concurrency through Sanford. In other words, I haven't been consistent. I guess we'll have to discuss this at WT:NCSH. I would appreciate your opinion on this, as well as the opinions of the other Wikiproject members. --TinMan 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Carolina Highways Naming Convention

This has finally come to an end. All we need now from the WP:NCSH project members is a vote on which convention we should use at the National State Route Naming Convention Poll. If you would, please go to Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll#North Carolina and cast your vote. This should be the last time we should ever have to do this. Supermajority will decide what we should do. --TinMan 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30/60

Hi. I removed the prod2 tag you had put on the article 30/60 because I had not used WP:PROD but WP:AFD as the deletion process. Of course, you are more than welcome to give your opinion on this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30/60. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: BW Expert

Thanks for that tip, Jayron32. Actually, there was a whole series I prodded earlier this evening before hitting the "homework," so I will try to AfD them later on. Also looked at the category, but it looks as though there are some articles within the category that have actually been worked up so I didn't do anything there. I will screw up my courage be bold and try to add those other related articles to your AfD, I think. Risker 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFB Project

--MECU≈talk 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 2006

[edit] American Football

Hey, I have just started on the 49ers players, i am going to move on to other teams after i am done, check out the 49ers roster page and the player stubs i have created. I like the table and i am planning on using that table for future player articles. Giantsrule 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football project

Hey, thanks for the note. I just joined the football project.

Someone else was looking to start one a while ago, so you might be interested in having a look here: User:Lomn/Wikiproject:American football. Perhaps some ideas, a couple other people to recruit, and whatever else you may find.

Thanks again for starting up the project, it always seemed to me a much better categorization approach than the NFL project. --Daniel11 16:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American football

Did some work on American football. Suggestions/comments/critique welcome. Jcam 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies

Note that we have several policies on biographies at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, namely that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, not a telephone book, and not a memorial. The realization of those policies has for a long time been our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. This, in its turn, has always embodied the primary notability criterion, albeit not as clearly as our other, later, notability criteria do. (In fact, back in 2004, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not itself actually came very close to stating the primary notability criterion outright, under the heading that "Wikipedia is not a genealogical or biographical dictionary.".) You're very much on the right track in looking for non-trivial published works about each person, and reading them to see what and how much actual material they contain, and who wrote and published them. Doing the research is an important part of AFD discussions. Uncle G 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AGF

Jayron, please don't suggest I'm acting in bad faith without checking out the facts. Calton has a long and sorry history of making inaccurate, unreliable comments in AfD discussions, has been making personal attacks against me for several weeks after I pointed this out. Calton has been warned, over and over, about making personal attacks, and was blocked for it not very long ago. I removed Calton's prod on the Buckley article because Calton's claim was that Buckley was only a member of a "state level" "minor" political organization. The Democratic National Committee is not a minor organization nor a state-level organization, the prod claim was complete nonsense. and I removed it in good faith. Please be careful to follow WP:AGF yourself. I do appreciate your good work in improving the article invovled VivianDarkbloom 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Viviandarkbloom may be a time waster and I may be smarmy, but it is pointless to bring up such discussions in the public AfD forum.

Two out of three, there, bub. It is a standard practice of mine when listing articles for AfD that have been previously de-prodded to list the reason given -- or lack thereof -- for the deprodding. Given VivianDarkbloom's shoddy track record -- bad-faith removals of articles that were undisputed deletes on AfD -- that was perfectly appropriate.

Even if I have no idea what I am talking about, and even if Viviandarkbloom is a raving lunatic, public AfD forums are not place to bring that up. Come to my talk page, tell me there that I have no business commenting on the article in question because I am a loser or whatever, but leave it out of the public discourse.

Not even wrong. Leaving falsehoods in place and burying the correction elsewhere, while personally convenient for you, is not something I'm willing to follow along. And as for your implied characterization of my remarks to you, all I can say is, project much?

Longtime members of state legislatures ARE notable. This guy passes the test.

Wikipedia, unlike the US Congress or state legislatures, doesn't run on the seniority system: you actually have to do something (or, in a few cases, have something drastic done to you) to rate an article. The feeble gestures of notability thrown into the article don't save it, since this is not Who Who in Democratic Politics, and nobody knows or cares about this guy outside of Nashua and, presumably, certain smoke-filled backrooms in DC that want to get him involved in 2008 Democratic primary (given New Hampshire's ridiculously outsized importance in the process). Hometown pride is fine, but it shouldn't override basic judgment of enecyclopedic notability. --Calton | Talk 23:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Calton, your points on this subject would be valid if they were not in conflict with expressed WikiPedia guidelines. WP:NN expressly describes members of state legislatures as inherently notable.

Wikilawyering -- leaning on literal wording of rules as opposed to their spirit -- ALWAYS a good start for an argument. Common sense works better for me.

Since you seem to be mostly concerned with an editors track record (as opposed to the SUBJECT of the article independant of any editors)...

Try not to make up things out of whole cloth, as this damages your credibility. Or perhaps your mindreading apparatus is malfunctioning?

I merely noted that he was a long time state legislator.. And I say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the phone directory, random collection of information, or run on the seniority system. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is what WOULD make a state legislator notable to you? Or do you just deny that any state legislator can be notable merely for being a state legislator?

What part of what I wrote was unclear? Note your use of the word merely.

To answer your actual question, actual lasting accomplishments; notoriety or outside notability (Sheila Kuehl); multiple¹, non-trivial² media coverage, where the person is the main subject of the story³ of the story, in major national or regional media (Frank Lasee, if his stupid idea gets much further than the "one-day wonder attention-getter" phase).⁴.

¹One story is NOT multiple: Buckley fails.

²Buckley is NOT the main subject of the story -- substitute "Newt Gingrich" with "Unknown J. Republican" and there would have been no story.

³ See number 3.

⁴Does not count metro sections. CNN is major media -- score one for Buckley.

You know, I'm not going to give your grasping at straws any more attention than it deserves, except to say that your complete and utter misreading of my inclusion of the example of Frank Lasee -- what part of the conditional if his stupid idea gets much further than the "one-day wonder attention-getter" phase did you overlook? -- tells me all I really need to know about your purposes and referencing. I repeat my statement about not letting provincial pride get in the way of ordinary encyclopedic standards. --Calton | Talk 23:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Garnett

I've added a couple of references as requested. Very easy to do - it's a wonder that no-one who voted "delete because there's no references" didn't do something similar earlier... Grutness...wha? 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Pot, Meet Mr. Kettle

I have not called any names. You have not called any names. You do the math.

Very cute. Transparent, but cute. Also, patently false (in your second sentence, if you need the hint), which kinda ruins the effect you were hoping for, but nice try. --Calton | Talk 23:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You win.

Cool! I don't recall entering any contests, but I'll accept whatever door prizes are being offered, as long as I don't have to sit through some sale presentation on time-share vacations or the like.

So, what contest was I entered in? I don't recall. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undeleted John Nagle

I saw John Nagle's vote on the AfD, then I realise that the debate was too odd/funny to be judged of its consensus correctly...so I'd rather leave it open for a while longer/relist the debate to be determined by someone else. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1932 NFL

taken from [1] 1932 George Preston Marshall, Vincent Bendix, Jay O'Brien, and M. Dorland Doyle were awarded a franchise for Boston, July 9. Despite the presence of two rookies-halfback Cliff Battles and tackle Glen (Turk) Edwards-the new team, named the Braves, lost money and Marshall was left as the sole owner at the end of the year. NFL membership dropped to eight teams, the lowest in history. Official statistics were kept for the first time. The Bears and the Spartans finished the season in the first-ever tie for first place. After the season finale, the league office arranged for an additional regular-season game to determine the league champion. The game was moved indoors to Chicago Stadium because of bitter cold and heavy snow. The arena allowed only an 80-yard field that came right to the walls. The goal posts were moved from the end lines to the goal lines and, for safety, inbounds lines or hashmarks where the ball would be put in play were drawn 10 yards from the walls that butted against the sidelines. The Bears won 9-0, December 18, scoring the winning touchdown on a two-yard pass from Nagurski to Grange. The Spartans claimed Nagurski's pass was thrown from less than five yards behind the line of scrimmage, violating the existing passing rule, but the play stood.

It may be slicing words but the 32 game is not an offical NFL championship it was an additional game use to break the tie in first place that counted in the regular season standings. Over the years it has become known as a playoff game and yes somepeople casually use the term championship, however it is not . The result of the game gave the Bears a better winning % that is why they were the champions in fact the Spartans moved downed to 3rd place because the lost hurt their percentage. Smith03 04:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• The text as written already includes the mention that the game was NOT sanctioned by the NFL as an official championship game; that it was a self-scheduled and impromptu by the Bears and Spartans for the purpose of breaking the tie.
  • The league arranged the game they did not leave it up to the teams. The league would have to approved any additional game see link above
• The game is often retroactively considered the first NFL championship game in the same exact way that the 1967 AFL/NFL Championship Game and the 1968 AFL/NFL Championship Game are retroactively called "Super Bowl I" and "Super Bowl II". Though not called the Super Bowl when played, the name was retroactivly applied when the game was renamed the Super Bowl prior to the 1969 edition.
  • Not quite the NFL has never listed this as a NFL title game in the same way as they do 1933-69 NFL championship games.
• If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... It may not be a sanctioned Championship Game, but it served the EXACT same purpose of one. It was played (under the scheduling rules of the time) as an extra game after the regular season for the purpose of determining a league champion. Sounds like a duck championship game to me.
  • Not quite the team that lost the game did not finish 2nd they finished 3rd. The league in 1932 was baseing the champions and standings on winning %. It was used to break a tie that resulted in one team being the champion
• The game is important as it LED to the formalization of the "official" NFL Championship Game. The success of, and interest in, this game is directly responsible for the formation of divisional play, standardized schedules, and a real championship game. It is thus notable in that it directly caused the transformation of the NFL from an informal collection of midwestern industrially-sponsored football teams to a coherent professional sports league.
  • I agree it led to the an official championship game the next year and spliting the league into 2 divisions. Althought the idea of splitting the league into two division had been kick around since 1925. Smith03 04:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Nothing against Hickory sports but in the case of a dispute I tend to give more weight to the NFL's view (simple because they should know what they did).

Also prior to the establishment in 1933 of an actual championship game. Teams rountinely would refer to a game as a "championship game" Ie if two teams came into the season with 0 losts or similar records the team that won the game often would argue that was the champioship game one case was in 1924 [2]. Cleveland had the best record when the regular season was done, however they schedule a game against the Bears and the Bears won and claimed it was a "championship game" I believe there was a few others (21, 26) I will try to find. [3] about the 21 season, Chicago beats Buffalo in late season game to claim championship, Buffalo see the game as an exhibitation. [[4]] go down to the 1926 part of the article talks of a game in Dec against Bears as the "championship game"

Also to use modern college football as an example the Big Ten does not have a football championship game like SEC, ACC or B12. However if at the end of the season Ohio State and Michigan are the only 2 undefeated teams in the conference when play each other people will call that the "Big Ten Championship game" is it well in a way yes but not in an official sense Smith03 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • No championship game does NOT work the NFL and other pages on wikipedia call it a playoff game. A championship game is something is schedule before the season starts. If within the text you want to explained it as an unoffical "championship game" that is fine but for a headline it should be playoff game Smith03 02:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[[5]] is okay with me