User talk:4TheWynne

This is 4TheWynne's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|4TheWynne}}), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

I see you're Australian, I'm American, and I'm telling you, bands are "they" here, not "it". "We went on tour with it" sounds completely wrong, and this tendency to refer to bands as "it" is something I've noticed on Wikipedia more than anywhere else (and not even consistently within articles, like this one). Believe me, I've been listening to music my whole life, and we say "they", not "it" – we only use the singular form of verbs when we use the name of the band itself. `Esszet (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esszet, if you feel strongly enough about it, please discuss at the article talk page, not here, and don't revert again unless you reach a consensus. In the meantime, read here: In American English (AmE), collective nouns are almost always singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, and are you seriously trying to tell me how American English works? Fucking seriously? I already explained it above, we do not say "We went on tour with it". Why do you think you knoew American English better than I do? Esszet (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esszet, keep the discussion to the article talk page. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world is your problem? Esszet (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) 4TheWynne, you don't WP:OWN Metallica and you may be over-applying American English; "almost always" ≠ "always". Miniapolis 16:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And going right to a level-3 WP:DE warning at User talk:Esszet is itself disruptive. Miniapolis 17:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2023 AFL Women's season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Teratix -- Teratix (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Years Active, 2024 is present. Adding “present” is redundant. Furthermore, the band yesterday confirmed that they’re doing a one-off show. There won’t be more, no new music. It’s a one-off gig. Partyclams (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2023 AFL Women's season you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2023 AFL Women's season and Talk:2023 AFL Women's season/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Teratix -- Teratix (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you are an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians#Participants. Therefore, I thought you might be interested in taking a look at an edit request I recently posted at Talk:Don_Ienner#Later_career. Although Don Ienner is not a musician himself, as the head of Columbia Records and Sony Music, he helped launch the careers of many popular contemporary musicians, so I am hoping this might interest you. I wonder if, while you are already on the talk page, you would also look at a previous edit request I posted at Talk:Don Ienner#Columbia Records & Sony Music section, which was only partially implemented. I was in a discussion with another editor about the bullet points he did not implement, but he has not responded to me. I would really appreciate it if you can look and see what you think over there as well. Thanks, GarrettEye (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2023 AFL Women's season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2023 AFL Women's season for comments about the article, and Talk:2023 AFL Women's season/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Teratix -- Teratix (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in favour of putting minor premierships in the season leads. I'd rank it behind Brownlow and Coleman in the list of extra things I'd include, and I think weight of references would probably back that up. Whether those two medals are worth putting in the lead, I don't have a strong view, but I'll be against the minor premiers when it goes to the project. I also wouldn't personally include the grand final venue, that's appropriate for the grand finals' leads moreso than the season's. Aspirex (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have read some things and want to know if these are notable enough for the 2024 season page (With the sources).

• 1. The total crowd across Round 1 was the highest crowd record for a single round of football (source: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1089139/raise-the-roof-afl-smashes-all-time-crowd-record-in-round-one-of-the-2024-season)
• 2. Caleb Serong's 46 disposals is a club record (This is probably more for the 2024 Fremantle Dockers season page) (Source: https://www.afl.com.au/news/1090061/beefed-up-engine-room-transforms-scrappy-and-dirty-fremantle-dockers)

Also can I ask why are some items in the season notes combined into one paragraph (e.g. the Andrew Dillon becoming CEO and the Jesse Baird thing which is incomplete)

Flipstatic Energy (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flipstatic Energy, "Season events" and "Season notes" are different sections – the former talks more about related events that happen during the season (incomplete, yes, but a work in progress), while the latter is further down the article, and the crowd record is already mentioned there. Serong's record isn't necessary for this article, but can be mentioned at his own article and any club articles where records are mentioned, like you alluded to. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah sorry I meant Season events before.

Also thanks I could not see the season notes section had the R1 attendance.

Flipstatic Energy (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just saw you reverted the edit, wanting consensus. Don't really understand why that is necessary, considering it's an obvious nickname. But have added it to the talk page. Basetornado (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get 2023 AFL Women's Grand Final to GA but failed. Could you have a look at it for me? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hawkeye7 – I'll definitely give it a look when I have a bit more time, but rather than a new review, I'll do a bit of a cleanup and see how far that goes to resolving any points of contention there. Thanks again for the DYK review, too. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well done 4TheWynne! I read the nomination page, and I must say the stitch-up with the Svarc sisters had me laughing! What a joke (the journo) --SuperJew (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I didn’t realize you reverted the edit to the change I did. I apologize. Didn’t know you did an edit in between. Meep Meep 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunnermeep, no worries at all. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 4TheWynne,

I was looking at previous coleman medal leaderboard tables to check something and I noticed that 2022 and 2020 are not complete. I would like to know why this is and if you would like me to attempt to fill the missing data in on the pages.

2022 is missing data on goals for Lance Franklin, Bailey Fritsch, Charlie Cameron and Taylor Walker. Franklin is missing one square while Fritsch does not have the goal tally on most of his squares. Most of Walker and Cameron's squares are missing.

2020 does not have a key or tally at all. It also does not show who was on top for each of the rounds. (This is probably explainable considering that was the Covid year).

Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flipstatic Energy, per my response at the 2024 talk page (I don't necessarily think that was the best place to bring it up, and think that we could have just spoken here, but I responded anyway), you don't have to stress about previous seasons, as they will gradually be cleaned up; unless you're confident that you'll be able to change the formatting properly and complete the tables error-free, I'm more than happy to do it, as I know I'll be able to apply it consistently. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I could add the final Lance Franklin square in easily but I probably would run into problems with the others ngl. Thanks for explaining though! Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4TheWynne also sorry about this but I noticed this guy changing the indigenous names on the 2023 page and even made two of the games wrong. (I had originally fixed the two games around unaware they were supposed to be in the indigenous form).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.190.25.184 Flipstatic Energy (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 4thewynne, re: your edit on the 2024 AFL season page, just wondering if there's any particular reason for not allowing teams to be called their indigenous names during Sir Doug Nicholls round? It's what they're referred to by the media and at the games, so doesn't seem like it should be a problem. It's a pretty minor change that pays respect to the indigenous history of our country. E Con211 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E Con211, see this discussion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Australian rules football statistics legend (pre-1987)/ruck has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 4TheWynne,

I have come to you asking if a stat is notable enough to be put on the 2024 AFL season page. It will be not as known since media on Fremantle is pretty dry but Fremantle are set to play their first game without an indigenous player in the squad since Round 12, 1995 (due to the injury to Alex Pearce). This is a span of over 650 games and lasts for most of our history.

I believe this is notable due to the length of this streak and the amount of games. I am already looking for a place on the Fremantle page where this can be put, here is proof of this in a link https://x.com/FootyRhino/status/1806261901804151087. Yes I know twitter links are not good for sources so I am going to attempt to find a better source if this can be added to the page (I suspect AFL Tables will have one and there is an article in The West Australian).

Furthermore I believe if notes such as Josh Kennedy kicking 8 goals in his last game in 2022, or Geelong fielding 3 Irish players in 2023 are notable enough this streak ending surely should be notable enough.

If this is notable enough can it please be placed on the page sincerely Flip Flipstatic Energy (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate saw your revert and comment regarding the referencing on 2024 AFLW. Could you link me to the GA review you mentioned? I'd be interested to read it. It just seems weird to me because for example the Melbourne announcement which shows both coach and leadership and requires duplicating the reference in the same row, while also for any leadership announcement (say the Freo one I added), the announcement is for captain, vice-captains, and leadership group in 99% of the cases (Sometimes the captain announcement might be separate in advancec, but don't think I've ever seen vc announced separate from rest of leadership group) - so should be duplicity in each of those 3 columns, other how it's formatted now looks like the cite supports only the "other leaders".

--SuperJew (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, see Talk:2023 AFL Women's season/GA1. The idea with the leadership group referencing was to add to the furthest-right applicable cell (similar to how the coach departures table is referenced, for example), however I recently added the overarching leadership group column header to help with this; feel free to check out the 2023 AFLW article for an idea of how the completed tables would look. Otherwise, though, as before, the Melbourne referencing is just temporary. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I had a read. Are you referring to FN51: no support for Symonds as Collingwood coach (maybe reuse FN132). Would you mind double-checking the other sources mention coaches as well as leadership groups??

This sounds to me that it's only an issue when a single source in a separate ref. column doesn't reference all the info in the row. In that case there is no problem having two references in the ref. column. The advantages to having a ref. column is that it's more flexible - we can have a single ref sourcing everything (and no need for unnecessary duplicity) or multiple refs sourcing everything. Also it's much clearer with a separate ref. column that the reference is for the entire row and not only the "other leaders" as seems from the format used on the 2024 AFLW page. --SuperJew (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, I would rather apply the same format to all clubs than have some with one source and others with two, so having two for all clubs would be the workaround, but I disagree that the flexibility you mentioned applies when putting multiple sources in a single column, as it doesn't necessarily make it clear as to what sources what; this is less clear than the way it's formatted now, where you have one source under "Coach" and one under "Leadership group", in the far-right 'sub-column', if you will. I feel like creating two separate ref. columns would be an unnecessary waste of space and combining the three/spelling out each position would be even worse. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have two questions to ask you as I can not seem to find the answers anywhere and you seem experienced enough to know.

How do I create a sandbox and a wikipedia page? I am thinking of making up new season pages for Fremantle for years between 2014 and 2023 but I can not find any information on what I am supposed to do anywhere. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flipstatic Energy, sure. The sandbox isn't necessarily a step that you need to take as part of this process, but all that would involve is simply creating your sandbox if you haven't yet and then creating a subpage, which would limit what you're working on to your sandbox (e.g. User:Flipstatic Energy/sandbox/2015 Fremantle Football Club season) until you're ready to create the article. The approach that I would take if I wasn't confident enough to outright create the article on the first go would be to follow the draft process, in which case you'd create the page with the "draft" prefix (e.g. Draft:2015 Fremantle Football Club season), and then when you think it's ready to go and you've submitted it to Articles for creation for someone to look over, the article would then be moved out of draftspace if successful. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok 4TheWynne thank you. By the way I have made a fixed 2022 season goalkicking table on my sandbox if you want to take a look click here. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne How do you like the 2022 table which is linked in my sandbox? I also have tried the 2020 table but its made using a different source so I do not know what to do with it. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flipstatic Energy, good job for filling it out a bit more, but you haven't changed the formatting to the one I introduced in the most recent AFL/AFLW season articles (which was ticked off at project level) or included finals goals, game totals/averages, etc. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will get to adding that. (Also ngl I hate hiow it looks when someone manages to outscore the coleman medalist in goals that season) Flipstatic Energy (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne: I have completed the goal chart as you asked me to. Unfortunately I could not find the leaders for Rounds 1-3. By the way I believe it looks wierd having the winner of the coleman medal (which the table is for) at the top of the table. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFLW Gee has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFLW Haw has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFLW NM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFLW PA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFLW Syd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFLW Tas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, Just wanted to ask you why you're going through almost every page to change {{AFL Nor}} to {{AFL NM}}? Seems purely cosmetic and just makes a mass of edits on my (and I'm sure quite a few others) watchlist. --SuperJew (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, I feel like it's far less of an inconvenience than what you, I and several others are currently trying to prevent from happening ("Seems purely cosmetic" could also apply there), but to answer your question, just going for consistency here, and NM (or NMFC, which we obviously wouldn't use) is the almost universally used short form – don't know if I've seen the short form "Nor" anywhere else. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not even comparing the two mate haha, especially as one affects our future editing (I've already suffered the fallout of it on the A-Leagues pages and to this day I'm pissed every time I have to type out [[Western Sydney Wanderers FC (A-League Women)|Western Sydney Wanderers]] instead of {{W-League WSW}}). Regarding the Norf templates, I do understand the consistency issue going forward, just personally don't think it's worth anyone's time changing past pages for it since the display is the same and the change is only in the wikitext. If you're doing it I'm not gonna oppose and revert obviously haha. Cheers mate! --SuperJew (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To jump in on this too — should the AFLW references to NM continue to use AFLW Kan (or eventually the "AFLW|Kan" new-fangled thing) given their North Melbourne Tasmania Kangaroos moniker in that competition? Storm machine (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJew, all good – I'm happy to change and maintain them all, so not putting the onus on others. And no, Storm machine, I'm still strongly against it, and reckon that North Melbourne would still be the WP:COMMONNAME anyway (plus the Kangaroos template has no transclusions). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, the pedant in me wants them to be Kangaroos given the official AFLW ladder and fixtures, but it's not a hill I care enough about. Storm machine (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop removing certain players that were recently added in achievements the NAB Cup 2013. Guys like Dayne Zorko and Elliot Yeo were a part of history as part of the last team the Brisbane Lions to win a pre season cup. I have been adding the full facts of achievements to players and coach for months, why do you keep removing them. 2403:4800:8442:BD00:4CA3:9C8B:8363:1CD8 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could request for protection to be put on some pages (including Dan Houston.)

Idiotic Carlton and Collingwood fans convinced he is going there are constantly editing the page badly saying he plays for them. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flipstatic Energy, I just made a request for Houston's article then – which other articles were you referring to? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not know if there are any others like this but I would definitley think of getting most the current players linked to trade rumors especially where Collingwood and Carlton are involved (and players like Petracca, Oliver and Pickett who all have been denied that they are moving). Flipstatic Energy (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne The same thing started happening on the Tim Membrey page, I undid it.

Also if I was to try tell these people to stop it how would I have to go about it?

(P.S. The 2022 goals table and most of the 2020 one except for formatting have been completed.) Flipstatic Energy (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned in an edit summary that you would be happy to clean up extra AFL team abbreviations. They should appear in Category:Pages using AFL team template with unsupported team name. Thanks. (BTW, these abbreviations are not "new". They all came from transclusions of templates or their redirects.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, I had already started fixing them, just didn't have enough time to finish them all at the time (I did mean to say "extra", not "new", but what I said does ring true for the category itself, which I had edited saying that we didn't need new abbreviations) – all done now. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to seperate retirements and delistings like the AFL Draft pages and use !rowspan=X| to clean up the retirement and delistings table?

Also when is the 2025 AFL season page being created, 2 rounds (3 if you count Opening Round as a round) and 15+ other games have already been revealed as well as the Indigenous All Stars vs Freo game. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I removed the 1901–1907 presectional ladders because I don't really see them as anything more than a Rd14 progress ladder in those seasons. Anyway, I'm not fussed either way, but you should add the pre-sectional ladder to the 1943 season page for consistency. Aspirex (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirex, 1943 was very different: for starters, there doesn't seem to be a clear system as to how the match-ups for the last five rounds were determined (e.g. Essendon, the top team after round 11, played teams 2–6, but South Melbourne in tenth didn't play teams 5–9, and there wasn't a clear pattern of every second team on the ladder like in the earlier system), and there isn't a section in AFL Tables for that season that can be sourced for this, unlike seasons 1901–1907... so no, I don't see how that would be possible, and even if someone worked it out themselves and put something in the article, it would be original research. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This article states the method was predetermined; based on that knowledge I don't think it would be OR to state the back-calculated basis. Aspirex (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirex, I understand, but given the article doesn't detail what the formula was, I reckon just mentioning it in the background section (especially as the information there wasn't sourced at the time) would be sufficient. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 09:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Football Record has a complete table. Anyway, you're missing my bigger point: at Rd 11 1943, the top ten of eleven qualified for the next rounds with St Kilda eliminated. Displaying that interim ladder carries at least as much importance as the Rd 14 ladders in 1901–1907, which only preceded some more H&A games. Aspirex (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]