User talk:Rambo's Revenge/Archive 18
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rambo's Revenge. 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. |
| ← Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 → |
WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to 
Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than 
Hunter Kahn (submissions) and 
TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to 
Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.
Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you reverted and took out the numbers column, but when User:Don Lope made these Don did not put in the columns to show when the multiple wins occured, which User:NWill made these column on two of the womens articles. I saw this and made it uniform on all of them, but Don did many things on these articles that were not correct, which had to be corrected to make them accurate and more representative. We need to start a discussion on the # columns and User:Fyunck(click) wants to eliminate the country descriptor such as USA in these articles. I would want the # column to stay, and the descriptor to stay. I just completed bringing-up to par all of the Women's Singles articles, which has taken me some considerable time, which both of these features are apart of! The reason, I am discussing this with you instead of just plainly reverting your edit is because I want to gain consensus for these to be implemented. By the way, I just want you to go look at all of the women's articles and tell me what you think of them. Have a nice day...BLUEDOGTN 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- There is much contention over what is classified as a slam (see all this argument). I agree that the Open era and non-Open era should be split, but saying that a non-Open era win counts less is subjective (for example, this subjectivity is indicated in an article where a win # of "4 (11)" is used and sorts under 4, for example) The complexities are dealt with much better and more thoroughly in the "Multiple champions" section. Furthermore, for the French Men's and Women's lists the contention about whether to include the "club members only" years for wins will be relevant. Assuming your goal is featured status, I would remove this win column as it has been contentious in the past. As for the "Country" column, I see it as useful and informative; it illustrates well the shift from Slams being won by the home nation to global players. Generally, the women's lists are of a good format, but I'm sure there will always be minor issues – something FLC will probably iron out. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually believe the mutiple champions and statistics charts should be all broken up to two diffrent wikitables one for the open era and the other for the Amateur era, so as not to confuse them as being the same kind of tournament. I think this might mean taking the three FL articles down and separating the articles completely then.BLUEDOGTN 01:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)The new titles could go as follows, List of Australian Championships Men's Singles champions, List of French Amateur Championships Men's Singles Champions, List of Wimbledon Amateur Era Gentlemen's Singles champions, List of U.S. National Championships Men's Singles champions. The introductions have way to much addendums in the way of notes in order for all of this information to be combined.BLUEDOGTN 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)I will be taking this to the WP Talk:TennisBLUEDOGTN 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay I say UNCLE, I will take out the numbers columns, when I can get to them, or you can!
but I will be forever spliting up the statistics charts sections into four for all articles in a week or two, and that is to reflect the splitting up of them in the champions tables themselves.BLUEDOGTN 02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would strongly oppose splitting up the articles further. The results are historically presented together in official sources. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- As for the number columns I have now removed them all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That's why I crossed out my comments to that effect about splitting them up!BLUEDOGTN 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Huge mistake on slam numbers
I'm sure you realize how much effort went into striking to proper balance on these slam charts? Literally years worth. Newspapers and magazines have quoted the numbers from this chart and found it extremely valuable and time saving. A separate chart would not be as simple as the "country" chart you linked me too because of the vast number of players over 130 years that would need to be on the chart. The setup makes it so easy at a glance to see the clumps of slams won by any player. Plus at a time when some are complaining about article length you want to double the size when it is unnecessary. I think you are in the minority on this issue to begin with and at the very least you should have given us a completed alternative before removing such a valuable and long held asset to wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- The numbers are going to have to changed at some point. Currently this article is a MOS violation and needs country names to accompany flags. A structure like {{flagathlete}} is suitable, but you are not going to have the bracketed country followed by the bracketed # of wins. Thinking on my feet what about going along the lines of:
| Heading | Championship |
|---|---|
 |
Australian Open |
 |
French Open |
 |
Wimbledon |
 |
US Open |
| Player |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amateur era | Open era | All-time | |||||||||||||
 Roger Federer (Switzerland) |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 16 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 16 |
| Pete Sampras (USA) |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 14 |
| Roy Emerson (Australia) |
6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 12 |
| Rod Laver (Australia) |
2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 11 |
- That would combine multiple interpretations of data and render manyy existing tables redundant. Opinions? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have no quarrel on the flag/country name change. We have talked about that and I realize the wiki policy involved. However you say the numbers are going to have to change at some point... why? I see no policy on the numbers "being forced" to change. Magazines have done the same and it has worked well here for years. That being said I'm looking at your chart and mulling it over. On first glance i don't like the flags along the top as opposed to the tourney names.. it looks unfinished there. It's going to be a very long chart and stops a reader from easily identifying the length of time between Rosewall's slam wins and McEnroe's sudden demise. You don't see those things in your chart to the detriment of readers and fact gatherers... and aren't they the important reason wiki is here? To put information as thoroughly and compactly as possible. I guess it just seems unnecessary to me to add even more charts but I will think about it the rest of the day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- For the changing in the numbering all I meant was that, even if we keep the system, we won't write
Rod Laver (Australia) (10/11) becasue the double use of brackets looks a bit silly. As for my suggestion, I wasn't meaning it to replace "Champions by year" table, but I believe it can replace a number of the other tables such as slam titles overall, open era, winner of 5+ titles at a slam. I'm trying to just present the facts and let the reader decide. You once said that removing the numbers seemed to be the only way but didn't really like the idea. I'm just trying to reach that elusive comprimise. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- You did pull my statement a little out of context as that was in an argument about whether to even have certain players in the chart. A huge compromise was made to have them in the chart but not to number them so as to help show they didn't really belong there. Thinking about it if we dump the main chart numbers then we might have to remove those early non-slam winners from the main chart and put them in a smaller chart so as to not confuse readers as to their validity. I really don't want to do that either. It's a tricky tightrope in all these articles (not just tennis) and I know moderators have a thankless job. But I look at my job as making sure vital reader information is at their fingertips, it looks encyclopedic, and the info is correct... yet also trying to keep an article from looking bloated, cheesy or unreadable. You pointed out that wiki policy is to have flags with names... I think it looks worse but the policy had reasons for being there so no argument after that from me. I will help change the slam charts to add another column to conform to that. But the numbers in their their (4/9) format are so easy to understand by everyone and useful for many that it's tougher for me to see a reason for change. Valentines Day tomorrow so I'll think on it some more while spending money on my gal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I tried a change on the List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions as far as flags in the main chart. Not sure about it yet. Wiki policy is really to name ONLY the first flag of its kind, not all the flags. It might look better to do so in this case especially since there are so many of the same flags in all the charts they could just be left alone, and even the main chart would only have 20 or so names and the rest could be just the flags. My eyes are now tired from doing find/replace on MS Word so it's to bed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- You did pull my statement a little out of context as that was in an argument about whether to even have certain players in the chart. A huge compromise was made to have them in the chart but not to number them so as to help show they didn't really belong there. Thinking about it if we dump the main chart numbers then we might have to remove those early non-slam winners from the main chart and put them in a smaller chart so as to not confuse readers as to their validity. I really don't want to do that either. It's a tricky tightrope in all these articles (not just tennis) and I know moderators have a thankless job. But I look at my job as making sure vital reader information is at their fingertips, it looks encyclopedic, and the info is correct... yet also trying to keep an article from looking bloated, cheesy or unreadable. You pointed out that wiki policy is to have flags with names... I think it looks worse but the policy had reasons for being there so no argument after that from me. I will help change the slam charts to add another column to conform to that. But the numbers in their their (4/9) format are so easy to understand by everyone and useful for many that it's tougher for me to see a reason for change. Valentines Day tomorrow so I'll think on it some more while spending money on my gal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- For the changing in the numbering all I meant was that, even if we keep the system, we won't write
- I have no quarrel on the flag/country name change. We have talked about that and I realize the wiki policy involved. However you say the numbers are going to have to change at some point... why? I see no policy on the numbers "being forced" to change. Magazines have done the same and it has worked well here for years. That being said I'm looking at your chart and mulling it over. On first glance i don't like the flags along the top as opposed to the tourney names.. it looks unfinished there. It's going to be a very long chart and stops a reader from easily identifying the length of time between Rosewall's slam wins and McEnroe's sudden demise. You don't see those things in your chart to the detriment of readers and fact gatherers... and aren't they the important reason wiki is here? To put information as thoroughly and compactly as possible. I guess it just seems unnecessary to me to add even more charts but I will think about it the rest of the day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the table idea that Rambo had in mind, but I want to know at what number we stop at 2,3,4,5,6,7? I would love to see it go to two, but that would be tremendously difficult, which if you are the one advocating for the idea, how about you do it since you wanted to delete the numbers by the players names without having the chart made! I like the womens with the flags in the opening chart having the descriptor, but it needs to be into a separate country column for each one in order to be sortable if it is to be kept this way. The reason the Pre-1925 French Championships champions are added to the chart is for historical context and to note them for historical sake, which multiple reputable sources even dispute them as slam champions. I think because they are mentioned by the slam means the need to be added for historical viewpoint only. This means they don't get the numbering (4/9).BLUEDOGTN 12:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I will put in the columns if I have to because I suggested it, but Rambo can fix the charts on the men's and women's page Raul's Laws underneath 17! Oh by the way, he is a bureaucrat!BLUEDOGTN 12:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why do the flags need to be sortable? That make the chart width even wider for those with smaller screens because you would need a new flag column for each Major. I think that would be unnecessary. The overwhelming majority of sources do not include the pre-1925 French Champions but that has nothing to do with the fact they are on the Roland Garros website... they should be on that site because that is a site that lists French Champions (which they are). They simply are not international Major (slam) Champions. But I already gave into this so they only reason I mentioned it at all was because I believe them being listed in a slam index was wrong. Ok we reworked the article to have them listed in a separate chart of non-slam winners but in the same article... which was also rejected. We then added them to the main chart with notes and the agreement that they would not be numbered like the other major winners. That turned out to be acceptable as the best compromise and I have defended it ever since. All I'm saying is if you take out those useful numbers their addition to the main chart would also need to be relooked at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I will give in on a separate column, which you and Rambo can talk it out of the numbering issue because it would be a time consuming task to do it, just saying! I think what Rambo's idea could turn into is something like this in golf List of men's major championships winning golfers, which is an entirely different article concept because this should be like this one in golf Men's major golf championships that has the numbers per you point of view Fyunck! I think it is best for you two to deal this amongst yourselves, but if it were upto me I would I would make Rambo's into a FL like it is in golf and take and put back the numbers back into this article! So, two different articles is my conclusion!BLUEDOGTN 21:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why do the flags need to be sortable? That make the chart width even wider for those with smaller screens because you would need a new flag column for each Major. I think that would be unnecessary. The overwhelming majority of sources do not include the pre-1925 French Champions but that has nothing to do with the fact they are on the Roland Garros website... they should be on that site because that is a site that lists French Champions (which they are). They simply are not international Major (slam) Champions. But I already gave into this so they only reason I mentioned it at all was because I believe them being listed in a slam index was wrong. Ok we reworked the article to have them listed in a separate chart of non-slam winners but in the same article... which was also rejected. We then added them to the main chart with notes and the agreement that they would not be numbered like the other major winners. That turned out to be acceptable as the best compromise and I have defended it ever since. All I'm saying is if you take out those useful numbers their addition to the main chart would also need to be relooked at. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I guess they really are two different beasts as different things are readily visible. I have no problem with another article with Rambo's charts since I could see myself occasionally using the info it provides. I just don't want to lose the valuable info the charts offer us now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Go here and look at my comment!BLUEDOGTN 14:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, if you get chance tomorrow could you have another look at the tiebreak issue? If you can bear to trawl through the dialogue between myself and BlueDog, I think we need some more input to sort this out...—MDCollins (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Tried to give my current assessment of things. Let me know what you think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Odd request... the continuing saga
Hey dude, good to hear from you. As for User:Rambo, this shows that there's probably no big reason why you shouldn't make an application for a usurpation, assuming you can request a rename for a declared "alternative" account. Your reasoning is sound (clearly bugs in the mediawiki software – oddly I spent a few days last week debugging delimiter issues myself!) and your intentions are honourable, so there probably isn't a huge issue. It's an odd case but one that I'm sure the 'crat community would treat sensibly. As for FLC, well yeah, I (and the community) miss your contributions massively. Any time you can get back to that, you'll be welcome with open arms!! Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio question
See TRM's last comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions/archive1. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Responded. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
File:Gretchen Bleiler.JPG
What do you think of this photo?BLUEDOGTN 03:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It was rightly deleted my another admin shortly after you nominated it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)