User talk:JonRidinger/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Progressive Field may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• measure {{convert|59|ft}} by {{convert|221|ft}} with {{convert|13000|sqft}} of screen space.<ref>{{cite news |title=Cleveland Indians getting new scoreboard at Progressive Field |url=http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Toledo Rockets official site link

I was just trying to get it to work, man. The template wasn't working on my tablet. Rikster2 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rikster2: The end part of the url with the "path=mbball" part apparently interferes with the template. If you just use the main address (www.utrockets.com), it works fine, but the specific address to the men's basketball page won't work on my desktop either, so I reverted it back to what you had put. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Corkythehornetfan fixed it. Just needed an extra "1=" before the URL. I just didn't have the time to look it up before reverting it to at least something that worked. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Utah Jazz first paragraph wording

I will concede the point about the run-on sentences in the Utah Jazz article, but why do you insist on changing the wording, seen in this edit? Look at the Orlando Magic article. It says "The club is currently one of two teams in the major North American professional sports leagues to play in the city of Orlando (the other is Major League Soccer's Orlando City SC)." Now I know not to bring other stuff into this discussion, but the reason why I brought up the Orlando Magic article is because I was trying to model the wording in the first paragraph to be consistent with other NBA team articles, such as the Magic article. I don't want to get into an edit-war with you, and I certainly don't want to violate the three-revert rule, which will result in both of us getting blocked from editing (so I'll leave the Utah Jazz article alone for now), but I am hoping for input from other editors so we can reach consensus as to how the first paragraph should be worded in the Utah Jazz article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Orlando Magic article should also be edited. The subject of the sentence in Utah Jazz is the franchise, Real Salt Lake, not the league. It also personifies the league by giving it possession, not to mention is just awkward. It's "Orlando SC of Major League Soccer" and "Real Salt Lake of Major League Soccer". Remember to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason. The other issue with that sentence in the Magic article is that it doesn't need parenthesis. Parenthesis are for words or phrases that don't fit a sentence of their own. They should be used sparingly. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Really, the mention of the other sports teams in a market is borderline trivia. Why do we mention the other teams (both soccer) in Salt Lake and Orlando? Do we mention all the other teams in New York? Boston? Los Angeles? Philadelphia? Cleveland? For the lead, that's probably not appropriate, especially if it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The lead is a summary of the article, so it shouldn't have any info that isn't elsewhere in the article. Further, Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada doesn't count MLS as a "major" league. It's mentioned in the lead as "another prominent league" alongside the Canadian Football League. Generally, the major North American sports leagues are the "Big Four" of MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@JonRidinger: I'm dropping my argument in favor of keeping it. I'll agree with you, there's no reason to mention Real Salt Lake in the Utah Jazz article or Orlando City SC in the Orlando Magic article, since neither the Real Salt Lake or Orlando City SC article mention the Jazz or Magic. Not only that, but the Portland Trail Blazers article doesn't mention the Portland Timbers. I'm OK with it if you want to just remove it altogether, since the focus in both the Jazz and Magic articles is on the Jazz and Magic, and any references to the Major League Soccer teams are borderline trivia. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Should I remove the mentions of Real Salt Lake in the Jazz article, and Orlando City SC in the Magic article, or do you want to do that? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Streetsboro High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aurora High School. 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) 10:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OSU all time wins

I agree with your concern that we don't want to just mirror someone else's (easily available) list. That being said we seem to have a new editor who is interested in contributing - and (rare among new editors) in learning about how the encyclopedia works. I'm wondering if there's any useful direction in which to point him? Maybe he just wants to do this one thing, I dunno, but I am going to think about this a bit and am soliciting your thoughts as well. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Thanks! I did suggest he put his chart in a sandbox page. That way it's not "lost" and if a consensus is reached that it could constitute a separate list (similar to the list of OSU football seasons), then it could go there. But I hear what you're saying, that delicate line between enforcing policy and quashing new editors. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If the guy only has this one thing in mind then maybe he'll be disappointed, but if he's an OSU historian then he might have some other stuff to contribute, dunno. Like I said, I'll noodle on it a bit! JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hudson High School (Ohio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hudson City School District. 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) 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of History of the Cleveland Cavaliers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of the Cleveland Cavaliers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Cleveland Cavaliers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vjmlhds 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Unincorporated towns in Ohio

Please stop redirecting unincorporated Ohio communities to the township articles in which they are located. There is consensus that these named communities are notable, even if they could be expanded.– Gilliam (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Gilliam: in general, the consensus has been for unicorporated towns to be redirected to their township, especially in the cases like yours where the "town" name is the same as the township. One instance is Twin Lakes, Ohio and Earlville, Ohio, which both direct to Franklin Township, Portage County, Ohio. For instance, the history of Shalersville and Shalersville Township are one in the same; there is no difference between them, and they have never been governed separately. That's true for any unincorporated town, but especially the ones that only existed as post offices and haven't existed with their own identity for many decades now. I'd say, add the info to the township article and if there's enough info, then spin them off. As it stands now, no township article in Portage County is in any danger of being too large. Again, virtually all of these articles are stubs and are likely to remain stubs since there is no longer a separate census measure of them or separate identity. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of such a consensus; could you provide details? It's one thing to redirect "X, Ohio" to "X Township, Y County, Ohio" for the Western Reserve, given the frequent use of "X" to refer to "X Township" and the strong ties between township center and the rest of the township; as such, I wouldn't mind seeing Johnston, Ohio as a redirect to Johnston Township, Trumbull County, Ohio, and Deerfield, Ohio would be a good redirect to Deerfield Township if it weren't a former name for South Lebanon, but places like Earlville definitely aren't good redirects for townships, just like "X, Ohio" shouldn't be redirected to townships outside the Western Reserve. My opinion only applies when the choice is between redirect and redlink; when a stub has been created for a township center, e.g. Shalersville or Edinburg, I think it's a bad idea to re-redirect it to the township. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it's largely from when city and township articles were first being created, along the lines of every township article having the standard "Township, County, State" name and all US city articles having "City, State" as their title except for some of the largest cities. Wikipedia article creation in general promotes developing existing articles and creating new ones only when necessary. For most of these unincorporated towns, you aren't going to get much more, especially ones that don't exist anymore like Freedom Station or Hiram Rapids. I have access to the same histories you do and there's just not a lot. In the cases where the town center is the same as the township, the histories are exactly the same and they are governed by the same entity.

@Nyttend: I'm curious why you think it's a bad idea to redirect town center names to the township, like Suffield, Ohio to Suffield Township, Portage County, Ohio. That's been the case with Rootstown, Ohio for several years now. And the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Suffield" is going to be the entire township, not the historic post office. For instances like Deerfield, Ohio, if there is potential confusion, that's why we have hatnotes for the top of the article, and/or disambiguation pages if the primary topic can't be determined. The article title should point to the most common use of that title. In the case of a redirect, we could have Deerfield, Ohio point to a disambiguation page, which is not unusual at all. See Carthage, Ohio for an example. Carthage could mean a neighborhood of Cincinnati, but could also be Kent, Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend. To quote someone: "I wouldn't call myself an inclusionist because there are certainly limits to what should be here and what shouldn't, but I don't think I'm a deletionist either. If notability can be shown—even a small amount—then why not?" Roseohioresident (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of notability, it's a matter of whether or not a completely separate article is needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

And sorry, I misread the earlier reply from Nyttend and thought it was from Gilliam. Yes, I'm speaking of the instances for the Portage County articles, not necessarily for the every township article. But if the only thing for a town is that it once had a post office 100 years ago but there's little history, I don't see the need for an entire article; certainly a historical mention in whatever entity it is part of (township or county). But I'm thinking like for Mishler, Ohio, there's virtually no history on it besides the family who settled there and the road that now runs through it (Mishler Road). I already included its mention in the Suffield Township article. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you've seen a consensus to merge unincorporated communities to the townships they belong in; I've seen this done in some cases, but it's certainly not the general convention (heck, a lot of states don't even have townships or the equivalent in the first place). Townships can have more than one community in them, so I don't buy the town center argument, and a lot of these articles can be expanded with a little digging through book sources and other less easily accessible sources. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: I guess I meant precedent, which I interpreted as consensus, such as Rootstown, Ohio and Twin Lakes, Ohio. And I'm talking about Portage County (Western Reserve) specifically where, for instances like Freedom, Ohio, there is no distinguishable difference between the township and the town at its center. They were all governed by the same township government and all consider them township to be "Freedom". The very history cited in Freedom, Ohio does not differentiate either. It's all under "Freedom Township". It just uses the different hamlets ("Center", "Station", and Drakesburg) to give an idea of where certain people lived in relation to others; it doesn't treat them as different entities. I have access to a significant amount of history for these little towns (former and current), and no, there isn't a lot, mostly because they had very few settlers and only existed for a short time. That's why they were redirects and mentioned in their township article. In many cases, there aren't even signs for them anymore or community identity separate from the township. If the only info is they once had a post office, why can't that be included in the township article in history? Why do we suddenly need a new article for that? --JonRidinger (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Either you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear in the first place. Let's step away from Portage County and go elsewhere in the Western Reserve. Weathersfield, Ohio is a redlink. Should it be created as a redirect to Weathersfield Township, Trumbull County, Ohio? Makes sense to me: due to the local geography of the Western Reserve, people often refer to townships without "Township" in the name, so it's a plausible alternate name. Very different from other places; I would oppose creating Paxton, Ohio as a redirect to Paxton Township, Ross County, Ohio, because unlike in the Western Reserve, townships aren't the basic frame of reference in southern Ohio, and people don't generally mention them except as "X Township". That's what I support. It looks to me as if the situation in question is different: Gilliam discovered a long-established redirect at Shalersville, Ohio, converted it into a stub about the town center; you're saying that the stub ought instead to be merged into the township, and you're also saying that other localities ought to be redirected to the township. I strongly disagree with the former (statewide, we don't mention freestanding unincorporated communities in township articles, aside from "The unincorporated community of X is located in Y Township"), and re-redirecting the new stub is also a bad idea, in my opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's legitimately nothing more to say about a place than a few sentences, and you have sources backing that up, then I agree it makes sense to mention it in the township article instead; that being said, that's generally not the case, so I wouldn't want to make it a precedent. The same goes for town centers; if the township and the town center are considered the same entity in practice, it doesn't necessarily make sense to maintain separate articles. (There's actually a sort-of precedent for that one, since New England towns often have town centers that are technically separate communities but occupy most of the town.) It's just something that we should be careful about, and definitely not something that should be a general precedent when research hasn't been done; there are lots of places like Clayton, West Virginia that are really small but have plenty to write about. (As for cases like Rootstown, that's more an instance of someone deciding a redirect was better than a redlink, and nobody coming around to expand it since; considering there are thousands of communities in the US, many without articles, there are bound to be a few like that.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's fine and understandable. I didn't mean to imply I was going around to every stub article and merging them. No time for that! This is all dealing with Portage County articles and all the pages I was merging simply had duplicate historic info (from the same source as the township article) and/or a mention of the former post office. That was it. I was surprised it was even an issue given how the names are treated historically (trust me when I say I've done a fair amount of research :) ) and presently (a case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). In all cases I have merged the post office information into the township history section, especially in instances like Mishler, Ohio or Freedom Station, Ohio where the "town" doesn't really exist anymore and virtually no info is available on it beyond a very short mention confirming it existed at some point. The Mishler one, for instance, isn't even mentioned in the 1885 history of Suffield. The 1885 Portage County history only mentions Mishler as "P.O. Mishler" under a bio for Joseph Mishler. No mention is made of the specific settlement at all and there's no indication one ever existed. My apologies for not being clear enough in my initial explanation. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant guideline

With this edit at Stow-Munroe Falls High School, you indicated that the full title of a linked article should be used whenever possible the first time it appears in another article. Can you point to a specific guideline which supports this, or is this based on consensus at WP:WPSCHOOLS? This is a general question and has nothing to do w/ the SMFHS article. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 00:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Levdr1: It's mainly from MOS:ACRO: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)." The main guidline, WP:ABBR, also says in the lead: "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper." --JonRidinger (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So I take it these guidelines are generally limited to certain types of acronyms and/or abbreviations? Levdr1lp / talk 21:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question. I'd say to just consider the audience and the context. It applies to any use of abbreviations and acronyms, especially ones that are going to be unfamiliar to most readers (like "MAC Center"), and even in cases like "NBA" and "NFL" where American readers likely know what that means, but those outside the US might not be as familiar (like "AFL" meaning different leagues in the US or even a completely different league in Australia). Acronyms should have some usage in sources and should be established in the lead as to what they stand for. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not cite a guideline in the SMFHS edit I linked above. Based on your response here, then, I take it that your reason for using the MAC article's full title in the SMFHS article had more to do with "MAC" being an acronym, and not necessarily because article titles generally should be written out in full in their first instance (i.e., your reasoning at SMFHS, based on your response here, would not apply to, say, whether or not to pipe "Monsters" into Lake Erie Monsters in its first instance in another article). Levdr1lp / talk 20:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it would apply. It even says "This guideline covers the use of abbreviations, including initialisms, acronyms, contractions and shortenings..." My response in that edit was based on that same principle, which is to be aware of your audience and realize that using any kind of shortening isn't needed for space constraints and can be confusing for readers (hence not using "Kent State MAC Center" since readers won't know what that means and there's no size restraint to prevent using the actual name of the facility). But was my edit referring to a specific guideline to use the article title? No, it was based on WP:ACRO. Article titles have their own policies and guidelines to establish them to be as concise as possible, so shortening them should only be done when absolutely necessary. What I said in that edit summary reflects that. It would also apply for titles that have disambiguation...i.e. you wouldn't write "Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)", you'd pipe the name without "(Kent, Ohio)", but also wouldn't use the nickname "Kent Roosevelt" in the first instance. Same for "Stow, Ohio", you'd pipe "Stow" unless the context required the state. But for titles like Cleveland Browns relocation controversy, you most likely won't use that exact title in articles, even in the first mention since it's not an official title of an organization/school/team, etc. For the Monsters, yes, the full title should most likely be used in the initial use rather than the abbreviated/piped version, otherwise it could be confusing to readers. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Levdr1lp / talk 17:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation templates

I've used {{Cite web}} interchangeably with {{Cite news}} for years now. Thank you for bringing this error to my attention. Levdr1lp / talk 01:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, JonRidinger. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Noticeboard#Cleveland_issues_with_nicknames_in_the_introduction.The discussion is about the topic Cleveland. Thank you. --Nobody1231234 (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

ArenaBowl XXVII

added a link pointing to FirstEnergy Stadium

U.S. Bank Arena

added a link pointing to International Hockey League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Geauga Lake

I noticed you were off Wikipedia for most of a week, but now that you've been active, I haven't seen a reply from you at Talk:Geauga Lake regarding the changes to the lead. Are you dropping your contention in the matter? --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikilink piping at Template:Cleveland Cavaliers

Hello JonRidinger (talk, I am writing this message to ask what your opinion is at Template:Cleveland Cavaliers. Specifically, the wikilink formatting for Ted Stepien in that template. Should it be Ted Stepien#NBA owner or just Ted Stepien? Please feel free to add your thoughts/comments/etc. at Template:Cleveland Cavaliers. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Marietta High School (Ohio)

added a link pointing to Marietta High School

Quicken Loans Arena

added a link pointing to International Hockey League

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of History of the Cleveland Cavaliers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of the Cleveland Cavaliers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Cleveland Cavaliers (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vjmlhds 15:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Parma Sun Post (Sun newspapers)

Very random, but does the Parma Sun Post serve a couple neighborhoods in the city of Cleveland? I vaguely remember an exchange we had on this a few years ago. Maybe we didn't. Relevant content: Cleveland#Print. Thanks. Levdr1lp / talk 15:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Solved. Levdr1lp / talk 15:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Good! :) --JonRidinger (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beltway Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers. 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) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Superdome

Hi JonRidinger - here's why I made those changes.

The names of venues and sports teams tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights, or moves between cities. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

• It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

1. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

• There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. 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, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Bank Stadium

My edits removing references to the Crystal Cathedral were reverted. I started a discussion on the U.S. Bank Stadium talk page. You can revert the change as I do not want to start an edit war. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JonRidinger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation format change

Please do not change citation styles on an article that has had a long-established format. {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} are practically identical, barring additional parameters relevant to print media. They produce the exact same output. In fact, cite web is commonly used for citing web pages in general. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, which is why I changed it, mostly for consistency. Little Caesars Arena does not have "long-established formats", though, nor is that a reason to revert. Further, when reverting, please make sure you don't full-scale revert things like my addition of the author to the CLickOnDetroit reference. The author is typically included in any citation where the author is specifically listed. Publisher is typically not included in a news source unless it is different from the website or publication (such as when a given website or publication uses an article from the Associated Press, for instance). Does it really help the reader to know if ClickOnDetroit.com is from Graham Media Group or that the Detroit Free Press is from Gannett? Not really. The point of a citation is so readers can go directly to the source on their own if they'd like. Knowing the parent company of a news station or newspaper really doesn't make it any easier to find the source, on top of the fact it's used inconsistently, even for the same news source. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

local history
... you were recipient no. 1320 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Ohio State Football Team

Hi Jon,

While it is true that the Big 10 does award co-champions, they did not do so for the 2016 season. Penn State was awarded the Big 10 East Division Championship outright as they had beat Ohio State during the regular season earning the tiebreaker. Penn State went on to win the Big 10 Title after beating Wisconsin in the Big 10 Championship.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machpro693 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ohio State is considered to be division co-champion, please, Machpro693, don't change that again!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Anaxagoras13, here is a link to the big 10 page, (http://www.bigten.org/library/stats/fb-confsked.html#results) according to the official conference website Penn State has the neutral or tiebreaker game over Ohio State and is therefore ranked higher and won the East Division Title. Ohio State did not receive any kind of co-championship for the current season. There are multiple sources confirming this. Please show me official documentation to prove your claim otherwise stop changing the page to represent false information! -Machpro693 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machpro693 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Machpro693: Yes, Penn State had the tie-breaker, but both are recognized as "division champions". It's similar to the basketball season where two or more teams can finish as "conference champions" in the regular season but only one is the #1 seed in the tournament. See 2012 Big Ten Football Championship Game#Wisconsin (specifically this article and this article), as well as this article, where Ohio State received a Leaders Division championship trophy despite being ineligible for the conference championship game that year. For 2016, be sure to read this article from the Big Ten, which states "With a victory on Saturday, Ohio State earned at least a share of the Big Ten East Division title. The Buckeyes have now claimed at least a share of a division title for five consecutive seasons."--JonRidinger (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)