User talk:UW Dawgs
List of NCAA Division I women's volleyball programs
Hello UW Dawgs,
I want to update you on a list you started. I finished adding arenas to every school on the List of NCAA Division I women's volleyball programs. Just thought you may want to know since you started the list. Have a good one. spatms (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2019
South Carolina Football
I'm literally including info that's covered in the body of the article. Why are you policing this South Carolina Football page with such scrutiny? Again, the small blurb I've added is covered in the body of the article itself. It's completely legit (not made up).
I didn't know we listed ALL the rivalries in the infobox. I think that's crazy--that's way too many, and it defeats the purpose. Can we not just take them out altogether? We would lose NOTHING at all, except for a bunch of filler (that in this article got broken easily). Drmies (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nebraska is definitely a qty edge case -I have no opinion re NOT and AfDs. Talk:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football handles this "better" with some local article consensus to limit. re MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the bigger Infobox deficiencies to me are around
...to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article
andCreating overly long templates with a number of irrelevant fields is not recommended.
Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Confused
Thanks for fixing the website citation on the Pitt-Notre Dame rivalry. I used the auto citation tool and it must not have generated all the information. I truly appreciate the fix. However, I am wondering why you restored the "need citation" tag for the intro sentence. I thought Wikipedia did not require a citation for the intro sentence if the rest of the text clearly supports the statement and contains the necessary cites.
More important, I am wondering why your message refered me to the policy on vandalism along with limits on acceptable additions. I hope the reference to vandalism is a standard reference, and not meant for me personally. I have not published anything that could remotely be considered vandalism and do not intend to do so in the future. So may I respectfully ask why that was included in the message, and what I (or somebody else) can do to satisfy the "need citation" tag on the intro line? Thanks.
Third degree 14 (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- This edit[1] removed a maintenace tag without resolving the issue, which was then restored.[2] It's not a big deal, I know you have about 30 edits and there is a learning curve (Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers). Template:Uw-tdel1 might have been a better choice, but it lacks other basic and helpful links as now seen on your Talk. Cheers and happy editing. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to follow up so that I can learn how to do this properly, can you tell me why the intro definition needs a citation tag? Is this not considered a college football rivalry? I notice that it is on the list of college football rivalries linked at the bottom of the page? If that is not enough, what else would be needed to remove the tag? I came across at least one article that referenced the "rivalry" between the schools. Would that do the trick? Also, why is there a tag from 2016 on top saying that the article "needs to be updated". Hasn't it now been updated with recent edits? Can that tag be removed now? Third degree 14 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Greetings
Hope and Safe | |
~ Happy Holidays ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |