User talk:Sportskido8/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sportskido8. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
){kind=link}
NHL team season articles
I've started a new project to create an article for each individual season for the Flames (and by extension, every NHL team). My concept article is at 2005-06 Calgary Flames season. Any suggestions you have for the layout, and how to improve it are appreciated. Please add them to that article's talk page. Thanks!
BTW, congrats on getting the Devils article to FA status. Resolute 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The season page looks really good, I think you have something good developing there. Speaking of the Flames, their page does not look too bad. Maybe we can work on it and push it toward GA and FA status? --Sportskido8 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Martin Brodeur
Hey, I'd love to help you on the Brodeur article, but I've got law school finals coming up, so I won't be able to do anything for at least two weeks or so. However, once I'm done I'll help you if you've already started, or if you wanna wait until I'm free; either way's ok with me. Anthony Hit me up... 14:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Sportskido8. I've removed the 'Famous Players' section & restored the 'Retirement Numbers' section (also notified anon-user Sparkhurst on Flyers talk-page, about same move on Philadelphia Flyers). Before making major changes to the team pages formats, you should check with Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, get a consenses for your major ideas. Then ONLY then, if you get a positive consenses, add 'Famous Players' section (but be sure to do so, for all 30 team pages). We must be careful, not to turn the Devils page into a Devils Fansite. Anyway, just wanted again, to let you know I've restored the 'Retired Numbers' format. GoodDay 17:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts, but the page looked a lot better before the edits that made it all list-like today. This article is a pioneer in its field. If it has featured status, then every other NHL page should be modeled after it. I let the people in the project know about this one´s featured status, so if they want to change it around then it´s up to them. We need to make this article look as good as possible, and too many lists ruin that. A prose paragraph about the famous players is necessary, in my opinion, and that Stevens image fits the section well. Sportskido8 14:10 CST, 8 December 2006
- I've nothing personal against the 'Famous Players' section. Just wish you'd have gotten a consenses first, before making a format change (ei. major edit). For a format change, you should've gotten your peers opinon first, it's more democratic that way. Yes the Devils page did reach FA status (I thank you, for that). Again it's the arbitrary way, the 'Famous Players' was entered, that made me unconfortable. GoodDay 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't really trying to change the format around. I just needed a title that would put "retired numbers" into prose somehow. If you feel there's a better title for that section then I don't care if it changes. The goal was just to get it into prose. Sportskido8 14:46 CST, 8 December 2006
- Personally, I've nothing against 'Famous Players' title or section. I was just unconfortable, with the fact, you didn't seek your peers opinions on the major edit (format change), before entering it on the Devils page (anon-user Sparkhurst, had done a similliar major edit on the Philadelphia Flyers page). When 1 or 2 pages differ (like this) from the others, it creates (though false) an impression of it being team-biased. I'd love to make format changes to the Montreal Canadiens page (I'm a Habs fan), however I'd do so only after getting my peers backing, then I'd do changes for all NHL team pages. GoodDay 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would´ve tried to get consensus but it was really like 2 or 3 of us working on the article intensely and I would´ve thought that if the other 2 guys didn´t like it then they would have changed it. Nobody really complained about it until now, and I never really thought to go to the WikiProject page to discuss something like that. Sportskido8 15:01 CST, 8 December 2006
- That's alright. In bringing up this discussion on the Devils 'talk page', I've got what I wanted all along (input from peers), the consenses from them is -keep 'Famous Players' section. Now I'm alright with it. PS- hope 'Famous Players' sections are added to all NHL team pages. GoodDay 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would´ve tried to get consensus but it was really like 2 or 3 of us working on the article intensely and I would´ve thought that if the other 2 guys didn´t like it then they would have changed it. Nobody really complained about it until now, and I never really thought to go to the WikiProject page to discuss something like that. Sportskido8 15:01 CST, 8 December 2006
- Personally, I've nothing against 'Famous Players' title or section. I was just unconfortable, with the fact, you didn't seek your peers opinions on the major edit (format change), before entering it on the Devils page (anon-user Sparkhurst, had done a similliar major edit on the Philadelphia Flyers page). When 1 or 2 pages differ (like this) from the others, it creates (though false) an impression of it being team-biased. I'd love to make format changes to the Montreal Canadiens page (I'm a Habs fan), however I'd do so only after getting my peers backing, then I'd do changes for all NHL team pages. GoodDay 20:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't really trying to change the format around. I just needed a title that would put "retired numbers" into prose somehow. If you feel there's a better title for that section then I don't care if it changes. The goal was just to get it into prose. Sportskido8 14:46 CST, 8 December 2006
- I've nothing personal against the 'Famous Players' section. Just wish you'd have gotten a consenses first, before making a format change (ei. major edit). For a format change, you should've gotten your peers opinon first, it's more democratic that way. Yes the Devils page did reach FA status (I thank you, for that). Again it's the arbitrary way, the 'Famous Players' was entered, that made me unconfortable. GoodDay 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Sportskido8. You may want to keep a watch on the Flyers page. An anon-user 'Darthflyer' has again, tried to remove the 'Famous Players' section (without a consensus to do so). Recommend you add a 'Famous Players' guideline to the WPT (vie consensus there), to prevent further 'removal' of section. GoodDay 22:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:LouNJ.jpg)
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:LouNJ.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Famous Players
As you know Sportkido8, weeks ago I went along with the 'Famous Players' section (title & content) at New Jersey Devils. I did so assuming 'Famous Players' would be added to all 30 NHL team pages (with consensus backing at WPT). Lack of addition of such a guideline at that WikiProject & lack of addition of 'Famous Players' at other team pages since, made me suspect a move (by Devils fans) of pushing the Devils page ahead of the other team pages. Now the recent edit conflict here & at the Flyers page (by anon user 'Darthflyer') pushed me to raise a fuss. Just wanted to explain my views, I don't have a vendetta agaist 'Famous Players'. GoodDay 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's ok, you're probably right in bringing up the case. I think this will be resolved soon enough. Sportskido8 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's currently 4-2 in favour of the content. I'd say the 'Famous Players/Honored Members' is here to stay. In respecting the majority views, I'll gradually try to add 'Honored Members' to all other NHL teams. Recommend though having HHoFers in a seperate section (in a list style) for the 'older' teams (Montreal, Chicago, NYR etc) due to the huge volume of HHoF members. GoodDay 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Moore12.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Moore12.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Beliveau4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beliveau4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Cournoyer12.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cournoyer12.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Dryden29.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dryden29.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Geoffrion5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Geoffrion5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:HRichard16.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:HRichard16.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Harvey2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harvey2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Lafleur10.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lafleur10.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Martin Brodeur
Hey, the Brodeur article is looking really nice. When do you think it should be posted for a GA review? Once it hits GA, then it goes through one more peer review before heading to FA nom. I'm thinking it's about time to nominate for GA, and see where it goes from there. Anthony Hit me up... 21:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was thinking that it needed a few more references and an "Awards and Milestones" section (not just Awards) before I put it up for GA-review, but it may be good enough now. Sportskido8 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:MRichard9.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MRichard9.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Martin Brodeur
I have GA reviewed the article and have placed the article on hold. Please see its talk page for my suggestions. Once the concerns have been addressed, contact me and I'll review it as soon as possible. -- Scorpion 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)