User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Archives/2010/August

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Long time no speak

How goes? :P Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing well, thank you, Mr. Wiki Troublemaker. Drop me an email. Prefer not to converse on the Wiki record. Can't say anything worth saying. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Troublemaker? That's a new'un. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Never kid a kidder: you've been called worse. LOL Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop "fixing" redirects to Florida Gators football seasons

Quoting from WP:NOTBROKEN:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental.

...

Reasons not to change (bypass) redirects include:

Redirects can indicate possible future articles."

This isn't helpful. As an example, 1992 Florida Gators football team isn't just a redirect to the decade article, it's the title of a possible future stand-alone article. In bypassing the redirects, these future articles will no longer be linked to as originally intended. Thanks. De FaultRyan 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not kid yourself: There will never be a separate article for any of these pre-2000 Gators football teams. The recent Wikipedia-wide trend has been to delete single-season team pages as non-notable, i.e. those that are not conference or national championship seasons of the Division I programs. For anyone within any of the various football projects to harbor the dream of a separate season article for every major college team's every season is plain nuts, because ninety percent of these seasons are simply not notable and never will be. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac or a "fan boy" journal for every bit of trivia about every college sports team. You only have to review major sports programs like the Seminoles, Hurricanes, et al., to see that many of the single-season pages have been deleted. They simply are not surviving new page patrol and AfD. Don't believe me? Spend some time looking at the football season navboxes at the bottom of team pages. One of the reasons the Gators decade pages have survived is exactly that: they are not a proliferation of non-notable single-season pages.

The redirects to specific season sections of the decade pages take readers directly to the particular season summary and schedule, not to the top of a ten-season page. The Gators football articles are set up by decades. In the ten decade articles spanning 1906 to 1999, there is precisely ONE separate single-season article, that being 1996, a national championship season. The articles after 1999 are single-season articles, and at least half of them do not merit a separate single-season article.

In fact, we have just re-merged separate single-season Gators articles for the 1906–1909, 1910–1919 and 1990–1999 decades without any internal Gators Project dissension. Everyone has come to the realization that separate season articles represent a dilution of limited man-hours to create separate pages that have a very high likelihood of being deleted by new page patrol or AfD. The original consensus was to create decade-long team seasons pages with schedules and brief summaries; it was a good consensus and should be preserved.

Furthermore, even if there were a significant likelihood that Wikipedia would one day encompass 150,000+ separate single-season college football team pages, there exist multiple bots within Wikipedia that serve no purpose but to reconnect broken links after an editor unknowingly breaks the link with a new edit. That argument is specious, at best, and I suspect you know it.

Bottom line: linking to the season redirect pages only takes the reader to the top of a ten-season decade page. The section links take the reader directly to the specific season for which the reader sought additional information. The answer is obvious. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy those arguments.

First, there has also been a recent trend of creating a season article for every Division I program for each of the last 3 or so seasons. I see no reason that that trend won't start to backtrack into earlier teams. Pages getting deleted have less to do with the notion of a single-season article being inherently non-notable, than it has to do with those specific articles not being up to standards. Just look at all the single-season Nebraska football articles that are being created and kept. You say, "There will never be a separate article for any of these pre-2000 Gators football teams." That's a rather bold proclamation to issue on behalf of all editors, present and future. Never say never.

I don't buy that you need to bypass the redirect to take the reader to the applicable section. That's why the season redirects typically redirect to the correct section in the target article. Even better, in case the sections get renamed, only the redirect will need to have its link tweaked, rather than the set of all articles that bypassed the redirect.

Just because there is only one single season article between 1906 and 1999 right now, it does not preclude the distinct possibility of there being more. Especially when many of those 1990's squads finished in the top 10, and the 1995 team actually played in the national championship game - how is that not notable?

Merging the decade articles is a fine consensus. I'm in no way countering that. However, consensus can change over time, and there is no need to prevent other articles from linking to new Florida season articles should that situation ever arise.

I don't know why you bring in broken links, unless you're suggesting that the decade articles would be deleted, and that somehow the bot could figure out to point the link at the season article at that point. Why not keep it simple, and leave the link to the redirect. That way, there is no need for this magic bot. That's one of the main features of redirects: to serve as a placeholder for a possible future article distinct from the redirect target. You call my arguments specious, yet I'm not the one trying to justify departure from accepted Wikipedia guidelines.

True, the answer is obvious. Have the redirect point at the correct section of the decade article. Simple as that. I'll even help update the redirect targets. (edit: I just noticed that many, if not all, of the redirects are already pointing at the correct section, rendering the whole "top of article vs. section" issue moot.) De FaultRyan 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Already done. I have already uniformly changed all of the individual Florida Gators football season redirect pages to reference the individual season sections on the decade pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You say, "The recent Wikipedia-wide trend has been to delete single-season team pages as non-notable, i.e. those that are not conference or national championship seasons of the Division I programs." So... Where is this supposed "trend" of deleting single-season articles exactly? I just checked the AFD archives and I found exactly one article deleted through AFD that was not a future season deleted under WP:CRYSTAL (and it was for a total lack of non-statistical content). Here is the list:

No consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-2008 Southern Oregon Raiders football teams (NAIA team)

Merged: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Auburn Tigers football team (before the season)

Deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Arkansas Razorbacks football team (lack of content), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Kansas State Wildcats football team (before the season), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Kansas State Wildcats football team (before the season), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Southern Miss Golden Eagles football team (before the season), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 New Hampshire Wildcats football team (before the season).

Moreover, it only takes one user with an interest to create the articles. Take for example the Michigan Wolverines football articles, every season of which I believe there is a separate page. Strikehold (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Strikehold, it's above my paygrade to delete most of this ridiculous proliferation of non-notable single-season and even single-game pages. Most should be whacked as non-notable, many eventually will be as they age and the currently vehement fan supporters move on to more current seasons, and frankly, that is a good thing. If Notre Dame and Alabama can get by with decade pages for most of their history, surely, most other teams can, too, notwithstanding the fact that I am quite certain the 2007 New Hampshire Wildcats had a fine season. There are so many things wrong with so many college football articles that it can only be described as a ginormous waste of effort to create separate team pages for non-notable, non-national champion, non-conference champion teams from 20 to 100+ years ago. But that's really another topic, isn't it? We were really talking about season redirects. (Please see my final comments below to DeFaultRyan.)

May I suggest that you click on any five randomly selected team season navboxes in this category [Category:NCAA individual season templates], and then calculate the percentage of red links in the average team season navbox. As you know, the more recent the season, the more vehement the fan editors are about protecting the page, but numerous older team pages AND bowl game pages have already been deleted. And, frankly, that is a good thing.

DFR, As an attempt at conciliation on this point, I will happily leave the season redirect on other pages as they are, if you will leave the individual Florida Gators football team season redirect pages as they presently are, i.e. redirecting to the individual season sections of the Florida Gators football decade pages. If so, I've already accomplished my purpose, and will gladly leave it alone. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I prefer to see the season redirects point at the correct section anyway. Glad we could work this out. Thanks. De FaultRyan 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Florida Gators season records table

I responded to your question on my talk page. De FaultRyan 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)