User talk:Starwrath

/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Starwrath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Doc Quintana (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistency with tennis pages?

I do not believe there is any policy or guideline that states that all articles should be consistent with tennis ones – in fact I know there isn't. And why would there be given that tennis articles in the main are hardly a shining example of Wikipedia's best work. In any case, it would be best if you initiated discussion before performing mass moves that are largely unnecessary and possibly controvertial. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 07:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

On top of that, you have only moved articles going back to 1990 and have failed to make the necessary changes to related articles and templates. Are you expecting others to clean up after you, because the easiest course of action will be to revert what you have done. _wjemather^bigissue 07:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not, I'm simply doing the work piecemeal, and will continue today, as it is a fairly large and tedious project. I know there are related articles/templates, I'll be getting to that. Also, it's not just consistency with tennis, but with the main U.S. Open (golf) page as well. And then there is the factual error of putting the term "golf" in the tile of the tournament. I don't care if it's "YYYY U.S. Open Championship (golf)" but I figured consistency with both the main pages and how the tennis articles are done is better. On that note, how did something that is clearly incorrect, and this time an actual proper noun, get setup like this in the first place? If you are looking for a WP policy, see WP:COMMONNAME - i.e. the name of the event should be the common name. This is the policy under which the main page and the tennis pages are named, so shouldn't that apply to the individual years as well? Starwrath (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that after your last great idea, you would have realised that having a discussion first would have been the way to go. _wjemather^bigissue 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the people who responded, a majority agreed with my assertion that the term men's was incorrect, and therefore according to WP policy, should be removed (I do understand that a consensus needs to be formed for the change - just pointing out that the majority opinion in the discussion was that men's should be removed). I proposed that a compromise (moving to "Major championships (men's golf)" which no one responded too. I also asked multiple times how calling something a men's event that is demonstratively not a men's event does not qualify under "misleading" as per WP naming conventions, and have yet to hear a response from you or the other people who opposed. I also pointed this problem with the naming of the U.S. Open yearly articles out on the WT:GOLF page in the opening post about the major championship move, and no one responded. If no one is responding, per WP:BEBOLD, I'm going ahead and fixing the problem - just like I did when I moved the major championships article before. You keep stating to start a discussion, and in both cases I noted in months before I did any action. I can't help it if no one responds. Starwrath (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your posts on the talk page were not suggeestions or proposals. They were vague complaints and unsuprisingly, in general they are exactly the type of comments that do get ignored (especially when they come from an editor with zero edit history – we don't expect them to jump in and start performing mass changes). If you are planning on doing something about your murmurings, you should state exactly what you are thinking of doing, which you did not do, if you want a response. You cannot expect people to read your mind. _wjemather^bigissue 19:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Exact quote: "An example I just found is that the pages for the specific US Opens are labeled as "YYYY United States Open Golf Championship" which is inconsistent with it's tennis counterpart (which is labeled "YYYY U.S. Open (tennis)" and the main page labeled ("U.S. Open (golf)") as well as being incorrect in that the word "Golf" should not be in the title of the championship itself. It's things like this that I would also be correcting." Now I admit I did not suggest the solution be "YYYY U.S. Open (golf)", but that does seem to be implied by the argument. I also do specifically say that I would be doing something about it. If someone objected to me doing something about it, or was unclear what exactly I would be doing, then they shouldn't ignore it. It really feels like you're nitpicking - pointing out that I didn't start a discussion, and then after I point out I did start one, you say that I did it "incorrectly." I agree that I could have exactly specified what I intended to do, but both cases it was quite clear that I felt there was a problem and pointed out what the specific problem was. Also in this case I stated that I would be fixing it. Either way, if people do have an opinion, then they shouldn't be ignoring comments about problems. The fact that I didn't provide the exact alternative I was thinking isn't an excuse to ignore the topic altogether. Starwrath (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with the tennis. You did not start discussion, you merely moaned about something that isn't really a problem and you cannot expect to get a response to that. As I've said before, there is no rush to do most things on here, and it never hurts to make a suggestion especially for such a sweeping change. Oh, and insisting that your opinion is correct is never the way to go. _wjemather^bigissue 20:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"Again with the tennis"? I pointed that out months ago. I was quoting. "...never hurts to make a suggestion" - that's exactly what I thought I was doing! I agree I'm presenting my opinion as the correct one (as, uh, everyone does, including you) but I fail to see where I'm insisting it's correct - at least without backing it up with verifiable facts (I would also point out that in regard to the men's term, I was in the majority opinion). I would argue that when someone points out what they feel is a problem, and then you dismissing it as "not a suggestion" and "moaning" is not the way to go. Starwrath (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Enough, I've made my point. I hope you have taken note and will seek proper consultaion before embarking on your next crusade. _wjemather^bigissue 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I will make my proposals more obvious for my next crusade. On a related note, I think I'm done but I've probably missed something. I've fixed the template and the table in the main page to not go through the redirect and fixed all double redirects (that I found using the tool). Are there other categories or templates that I'm not aware about? Thanks. Starwrath (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Open

When you change a page such as the various 19XX U.S. Open pages to a disambiguation, or a redirect to a disambiguation page, please remember that all the other articles that link to that title need to be fixed so that they continue to link to the intended article. See Special:Whatlinkshere for the page you changed to find the articles that need to be corrected. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I posted a note at WT:TENNIS about that, I'm in the process of fixing it. I've fixed from 2000-2010 so far. The problem is that there were a lot of pages incorrectly using the redirect instead of already linking directly to the intended article. Starwrath (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Major championships move

Well, it was uncontested and it was too weeks ago. So, I'm going to leave it there and see what happens with your proposal to move it back. No opposition is a consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• True, but there was an opposition - just not in time (I don't check the page every 10 days to see if there is someone proposing a move). My point was that if that person is the only person opposing the revert of the move, the revert should still happen because that was the "status quo" before they proposed the move. Starwrath (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Starwrath. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Starwrath. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)