User talk:Moverton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A request for assistance 2 2007 Kansas City Royals season 3 Additional changes 4 Human evolution timescale chart

[edit] A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I know you don't know me, but I frequently go to a user's talk page, and after seeing your name helping them out on a vast majority of the ones I've been on today (not to mention the amazing quality and thoroughness of the aforementioned comments), I really think you deserve this. Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - I saw somewhere you mentioned a "font-variant" attribute (the guy wanted a big capital letter for the first word and then small for the next for each word - I think) - if you have time could you explain that to me? I've actually worked with html for a while and I've never seen it. Either way, happy wikipeding(word?)Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U

Thank you, I appreciate it. I don't remember the exact discussion you refer to, but I assume it was about using small caps. Formatting a word in small caps (like Wikipedia) can be done using the code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wikipedia</span>. But we can also use a template for this now: {{Smallcaps|Wikipedia}}. —Mike 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Kansas City Royals season

Do you see "Transactions" anywhere else in the MLB team articles? I don't think so. Seriously, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/MLB team season articles format and tell me where it says anything about including transactions in these articles. Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see that anywhere. So please stop re-adding that transaction in the article without a sufficient explanation. And by "sufficient explanation", I don't mean a statement saying "...my edit is perfectly valid".

And I need a lesson about Wikipedia? I see that you blanked Talk:1985 Kansas City Royals and pasted that info at Talk:1985 Kansas City Royals season. If anybody, it's you who needs a lesson. Doing what you did completely erases a page's edit history. A proper move must be done to maintain the page's edit history.

Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look closely at the edit history for that article you will see that someone else did a cut-and-paste move of the article. I was simply moving the discussion material to the new article's location to keep it together. But I doubt you looked that close at it. As for Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/MLB team season articles format, it doesn't provide a template for the articles. Projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties provide an actual template as a guideline for article creation. (I stress the word guideline.) —Mike 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you didn't just deny doing a copy-paste. And I take your comment "...I doubt you looked that close at it" rather offensive. I wasn't looking at the history for Talk:1985 Kansas City Royals season, but rather Talk:1985 Kansas City Royals. I know it's a minor edit you made to Talk:1985 Kansas City Royals, as the only previous edit was a robot adding a Wikiproject template. But still, copying and pasting removes the edit history for that page, no matter how few edits there have been made to it.

Second, I never said that this was a template. This is for the format of all articles, and to keep it uniformed (all pages of the same category the same format) we abide by that format. Notice how every single article follows that format? But that one thing, adding the transactions, screws it all up and removes the uniformity amongst all 30 articles. And that is not acceptable.

Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are worried about uniformity I'd be happy to go through and add a "Transactions" section to each article. But as a general rule, I don't add section titles unless I have material to include in that section. Plus I don't care to maintain 30 articles. The purpose of these articles shouldn't be to just create a stats sheet and game log. Adding relevant material related to the season is not forbidden. Furthermore, if all you need is for the word "Transactions" to appear somewhere on that page you are citing, I'd be happy to add that (and a few other things I'll likely think of). —Mike 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand. "I don't add section titles unless I have material to include in that section" You just admitted in that quote that you don't add a section if there isn't anything to put there. If that's the case, then that would break up the uniformity if you add it to all but one. "I don't care to maintain 30 articles" It isn't your job to maintain 30 articles. There are people assigned to each article to work on. "if all you need is for the word "Transactions" to appear somewhere on that page you are citing, I'd be happy to add that" This isn't what we need. Leave some sort of comment about the topic at one of the sites linked in my first comment here.

Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} Ksy92003 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand. The problem as it seems to me is that you think you own the project and that all the seaon articles have to conform to some sort of rigid format which apparently has never taken into consideration the format of existing season articles. (The Minnesota Twins have an article for every year and their articles do include notable transactions.) In all this fuss you have never once given me a reason why notable transactions should not be added. And simply saying "because I don't see it on such-and-such page" doesn't count. —Mike 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional changes

Hey Moverton. Or is it Mike? I don't know anymore. Anyway, I have a couple comments about your changes.

First, we already have a table in our team articles for the offensive and pitching stats. So we don't have to worry about any additional changes to those.

Second, I agree that we should change Playoffs to Postseason.

Third, Awards and Honors we don't have to worry about until at least Player of the Month Awards are handed out. So we don't have to include those in the articles just yet.

Fourth, Records and Milestones is a category which I think we should put off on editing until after the conclusion of the season.

Fifth, I don't think a Trivia section is appropriate in this type of article. And besides, what examples do you have of trivia that would go in this section?

And last but not least, you say "...trades involving players that were in at least one game at the major league level during the current or prior season." This is not a good way of deciding a notable trade or not. For instance, and this is completely made-up, what if the Angels and Yankees made a trade and one of the players played a couple games for the Angels, then was demoted to Triple-A Salt Lake? Is this a "notable" trade because he played a couple games, even if nobody ever heard from him again for the rest of the year? If this section is to be included, surely there must me more than just that one criterion to determine which trade is considered "notable". Ksy92003 ^{talk·contribs} 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If the project is trying to come up with a standard format for season articles, it should be able to apply both to the present season and past seasons. Just because the awards haven't been handed out yet this season doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the general format guideline. The title would of course not be added until there was actually an award. Same for records and milestones.

Looking around Wikipedia you will see Trivia tends to be miscellaneous things that may not fit into the text of the article. There may or may not be any trivia in any given year. I wouldn't normally include it in a guideline because it is usually implied as an "ok" section to add. I only include it here so any editor who tries to be "hardline" with this guideline can't complain.

If a reader looks at the roster for that season and sees the player there, but does not see him in the following year, the reader may question what happened to the player. That is what makes it notable—because he was mentioned elsewhere in the article. That is also the easiest way to draw an arbitrary line for notability. It avoids fights about whether a player was important enough to be considered "notable".

As you can probably guess, Mike is my first name. —Mike 05:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human evolution timescale chart

Hi Mike - Did you create the timescale chart over at Human evolution? It's really nicely done! There's some discussion happening over at Talk:Human evolution about the possibility of changing the labels on the horizontal axis. If you are indeed the creator (or if you have helpful knowledge about the chart), would you mind lending some expertise? Thanks, Figma 05:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)