GreenLocust

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've been doing a good job on the RADIUS spam; that last one looked legit 'tho. Well, at least not commercial spam (which is why I left it). Did you follow the link through? Josh Parris ✉ 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding that Memorial Stadium error. Palmer also threw one there in 69. In the correction I inadvertently thanked you as GreenLantern -- sorry about that. pickle 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Although the linking of dates is now depreciated, no one is actually allowed to go around in a campaign to de-link existing instances, as it appears you have been doing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The information in the infobox is sometimes duplicative of what is in the body of the article. It serves as a summary of highlights. I noticed that you have begun to delete the birthplaces of various ballplayers because they are reflected in the infoboxes. Well, so is their name. And so is their team (or teams). And so is their date of birth. And yet I don't so you deleting those from the text of the article -- though you logic would lead to that. I believe that you should follow the logic that is apparent from the infoboxes -- they are a summary of most pertinent facts, and inclusion of info in them should not lead to your stripping that info from the article. If you want to do that, I suggest you bring your suggestion to the baseball discussion page. In the meantime, please re-insert that info into the articles. If you wish to put it in the second para, that is fine with me, but it deserves to be in the article just as the date of birth (which you have not touched) deserves to be in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi -- will you be addressing this, or should I? Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I fail to see what needs to be addressed. First of all, I don't know where you get that I'm deleting the birthplace in the opening because it's in the infobox. As I stated and helpfully linked to in my editing comments, the MOS clearly states that the birthplace is not to be included in the opening alongside the birthdate (see here and here). That's why I'm deleting it, as to conform with the stated policy. This seems to be a stylistic affliction that is primarily limited to athletes, but there is no special MOS for athlete biographies; the Biography MOS covers everybody. When the information is already present in the rest of the article (usually in the infobox), I go ahead and delete it since no information is thus being removed from the article. In those cases where no infobox is present, and the deletion would actually result in the removal of information from the article, I leave the birthplace alone. Despite what you seem to be implying, the infobox is, in fact, part of the article. It is there to summarize and supplement information in the main body. There is a lot of information that is typically included in infoboxes that is not present in the rest of the article, such as uniform number, throwing hand, career stats, etc., so your implication that the infobox contains only information that is included in the rest of the article is simply false. If someone wants to take the birthplace information from the infobox and use it in an "Early Life" section for biographies that don't already have one, they are free to do so, since that is where the birthplace would normally go (in addition to the infobox). After my deletions, the information is still there in the article for everyone to see. One place it definitely does not belong is next to the birthdate in the opening. GreenLocust (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused --

First, you say you fail to see where I get that you are "deleting the birthplace in the opening because it's in the infobox."

I get it from the following 57 explanatory edit entries that you made (emphasis added in first one):

1. 17:10, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) B. J. Tucker ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
2. 17:06, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Lance Painter ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
3. 15:19, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Dustin Pedroia ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
4. 15:18, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Lou Boudreau ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
5. 15:17, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Butch Hobson ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
6. 15:17, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Don Zimmer ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
7. 15:16, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Todd Greene ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
8. 15:16, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Bobby Ramos ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
9. 15:15, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Steve Henderson ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
10. 15:15, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Tom Foley (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
11. 15:15, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) George Hendrick ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
12. 15:14, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) R. J. Swindle ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
13. 15:14, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) José Lobaton ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
14. 15:13, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Dale Thayer ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
15. 15:13, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Wade Davis (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
16. 15:12, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Jacob McGee ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
17. 15:12, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Mitch Talbot ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
18. 15:12, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Joe Nelson ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
19. 15:12, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Elliot Johnson (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
20. 15:11, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) John Jaso ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
21. 15:10, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Andy Sonnanstine ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
22. 15:10, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Matt Joyce (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
23. 15:09, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Reid Brignac ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
24. $15:09, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Justin Ruggiano ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
25. 15:08, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Grant Balfour ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
26. 15:08, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Jeff Bennett (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
27. 15:08, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Michel Hernández ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
28. 15:07, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) J. P. Howell ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
29. 15:07, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Randy Choate ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
30. 15:06, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Dan Wheeler ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
31. 15:05, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Jeff Niemann ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
32. 15:05, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) James Shields (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
33. 15:04, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Lance Cormier ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
34. 15:04, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Dioner Navarro ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
35. 15:04, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Gabe Kapler ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
36. 15:03, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Gabe Gross ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
37. 15:03, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Carlos Peña ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
38. 15:02, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Matt Garza ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
39. 15:02, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Scott Kazmir ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
40. 15:02, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) David Price (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
41. 15:01, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Carl Crawford ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
42. 15:01, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Joe Dillon ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
43. 15:00, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Jason Bartlett (baseball) ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
44. 15:00, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Pat Burrell ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
45. 15:00, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) Evan Longoria ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
46. 14:59, August 7, 2009 (hist) (diff) B. J. Upton ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
47. 19:58, August 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Bartolo Colón ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
48. 19:57, August 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Pedro Martínez ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
49. 23:33, July 31, 2009 (hist) (diff) Hong-Chih Kuo ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
50. 23:28, July 31, 2009 (hist) (diff) LeVar Burton ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
51. 14:57, July 31, 2009 (hist) (diff) Rick Warren ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
52. 20:44, July 30, 2009 (hist) (diff) Dave Widell ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
53. 20:44, July 30, 2009 (hist) (diff) Doug Widell ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
54. 20:43, July 30, 2009 (hist) (diff) Boss Bailey ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
55. 20:43, July 30, 2009 (hist) (diff) Champ Bailey ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox) (top)
56. 20:42, July 30, 2009 (hist) (diff) Josh Bell ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)
57. 20:19, July 30, 2009 (hist) (diff) Tim Alderson ‎ (no birthplace in opening per MOS - already in infobox)

Second, the purpose of the infobox is to present certain summary or overview information about the subject that is IN the article. The fact that something is in the infobox is not reason to delete it from the article. This should be obvious, as the infobox also includes information such as the name of the person, his birthdate, teams he played for, major awards, etc., all of which is also included in the article--and I note you are not deleting those.

Third, perhaps I missed it, but while you say "the MOS clearly states that the birthplace is not to be included in the opening," (emphasis added) the first reference that you pointed me to only seemed to mandate what MUST be "at the start of an article on an individual" ... (his or her dates of birth and death). It did not at all seem to prohibit mention of the place of birth from being in the first paragraph (though it did not mandate it). The second reference, to naming, also seemed not to be relevant in the least -- if you can point me to relevant language in it that I may have missed, please do.

Fourth, if there is a mandate (or good reason) to not put the place of birth in the first paragraph, please point me to the mandate or good reason and feel free to move the reference to the second paragraph. But please by no means delete the information from the article, and please either revert the above deletions or move the reference (if there is support for the need to move it). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

1) You're right, I don't know where you're getting it. "No birthplace in opening per MOS" is one statement, "already in infobox" is another statement, both true. I'll expand it for you: "no birthplace in opening per MOS (hence I'm deleting it) - already in infobox (so no information is being lost)". I thought the "per MOS" explained why I was doing it, but I guess that wasn't clear.

2) Again, I'm not deleting it because it's in the infobox, I'm deleting it to conform with the MOS (and every single featured article I looked at). I already stated this in my initial response, but I guess you didn't read it. Everything in the infobox is not necessarily in the rest of the article. There is additional information, such as uniform number, throwing/batting hand, career stats, etc. which is often included in infoboxes that is not present in the rest of the article, and I don't know why you don't recognize this. And of course I'm not deleting the rest, since the MOS doesn't say anything about those other things, and I'm doing this to conform with the MOS.

3) Right here: "Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates." I'm unentangling them. The information is not being lost. It is still right there in the infobox. The infobox is part of the article. If someone wants to add an "Early Life" section which includes the birthplace, they are welcome to do so. There are a million things which need to be done to most articles to get them to featured article quality. I'm doing one of them. I invite you to go through as many biographical featured articles as you can stand and see how many have the birthplace at the opening next to the birthdate, and how many don't. If this style bothers you, I suggest you get the MOS changed, but as long as I'm following the MOS, I'm not going back and reverting them to a style which directly contradicts the MOS. GreenLocust (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I may butt in on this discussion, both WP:NAMES and MOS:DOB is a guideline and definitely not a policy in which GreenLocust has implied. I think the mass deletion of birthplaces in the introduction to an article is unnecessary and personally I think it takes away from the article. Whenever I create any articles that fall under biographies of living people or athletes, I almost always start off with the opening sentence Joe Somebody (born 1st January, 1911 in Townsville, Australia) is an Australian tennis player etc. The point is WP:NAMES is a guideline and does not have to be (and actually is rarely word by word) followed by. So if it's upsetting people GreenLocust, please have good faith towards other peoples will and refrain from making such edits. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dude, I'm following the MOS (and the style followed by every featured article I could find, and pretty much all of the non-athlete bios as well), and your advice is to ignore the MOS because one person doesn't like it? How about this: your style of putting the birthplace alongside the birthdate in the opening in direct contravention of the MOS bothers me, so please refrain from making those edits. Oh, and by the way, please go back and change all your previous edits to conform with my request. Because that's what your buddy is asking of me (except they want to ignore the MOS). But hey, maybe you guys are right, and so I should go and change every featured article to conform with your style. I'm sure that will go over very well. When I have the MOS and all featured articles on my side, and the argument against it is that someone doesn't like it, I'll stick with the MOS. By the way, I'm also changing hyphens to dashes in date ranges as specified by the MOS. If some hyphen-lover comes along and requests I stop that because they don't like dashes, and that I should go back and change all my previous edits, should I do that as well? GreenLocust (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If some hyphen-lover comes along and requests I stop that because they don't like dashes, and that I should go back and change all my previous edits, should I do that as well? Yes, probably. You should at least talk about it; those who do not do so have been banned for incivility.

The Manual of Style is a guideline. It has force insofar as it is consensus, and insofar as it is supported by sound argument. Unfortunately, very little of it is supported by argument, and much of it is the product of revert-warring, not WP:Consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Green, I think the main point is that the infobox has all sorts of information that is summary -- as I point out above. And you don't delete that information, even though it is in the infobox. Which I think is fine. But similarly, I don't think you should delete the birthplace. People may not read the infobox, just as they might not read the awards box -- and the birthplace is as basic (probably more basic) than the month and day the person was born. So I think it definitely belongs in the text of the article.

I would be astounded if the bios of most if not all of the 10 most read people don't have the place of birth somewhere in the text. Rather than just in the infobox. Check Obama for instance. If you want to move it down a para, do so, but deleting it entirely from the text and relying only on it being in the summary infobox alone does not cut it, is not like most featured articles, and is not like most encyclopedias.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're being very pedantic about the subject many stub or start class articles follow a style contrary to the MOS simply because there is usually insufficient information to cover all areas of the manual, for example, when there is no information on earlier life. I'm sure your attentions are of good faith, but frankly deletion of information on Wikipedia is usually pointless and annoying for users who have created the information. This is much like your delinking of Wikipedia articles. Just because it is a guideline, unless it is a candidate for a GA or FA, it just causes arguments. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Green-- JRA Westy (above) and I agree. I'm saying that my experience with FA and GA articles is that the location of birth is located in the text of the article, not just in the infobox. You seem to suggest the opposite. I think if you double-check you will see I am correct.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• This seems a clear misreading of the Manual of Style. The example given is "Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British ...". That's from the text of Charles Darwin, not an infobox; that the text has evolved since is a detail.
• More importantly, it ignores the purpose of infoboxes, and their utility to the encyclopedia: they are supposed to summarize the text of the article (which should be sourced), not replace it. (Some would argue that this is not sufficient utility to justify their space- and they may prevail; we do not wish to lose information if infoboxes are removed.)
• Birthplaces are usually not necessary in the first parenthesis - although giving them there is probably harmless for living persons; but they should certainly be in the text - and usually in the lead - of the article. Your edits have failed to do this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed proposing a change to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death here. Please drop by and deposit your two cents. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) You absolutely, positively should not delete information from an article's main body of text simply because it is already in the infobox. Infoboxes are summaries of key points (and often navigation aids, e.g. from one TV series episode article to the next), not stand-alone mini-articles. The article itself may be repurposed in many ways (all of Wikipedia's content is free and reusable), including in forms that do not have such things as infoboxes or MediaWiki templates at all, such as other websites, books, you name it. Infoboxes are a convenience for Wikipedia readers, nothing more. The flip side of this point, of course is that any information found in an infobox should be added to the article and sourced there; citations belong in the article, not the infobox. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS: If the birthplace is in the lead ("Opening?" Where'd that come from?) on a article with an infobox, then its presence in the lead should be moved to an "Early life" or similarly-named section in the article. If there is not enough material in the article for such a section, then it should be left as-is, because the article is a stub and needs a lot of further development before all of the recommendations that could apply to a biographical article will even make any sense with regard to the article in question. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Green--Given the discussion both here and at [1], will you please as requested by me and others re-insert the information of birth place that you deleted from the 60-odd articles in question into the body/text (not counting the infoboxes as body/text) of those articles? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of largest video screens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miller Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply