Barryjjoyce

Hey, thanks for your reply and advice about the 2012 CRC page on my user page. I went ahead and moved it to my talk page. Let's post any further discussion there. I checked around your contributions and noticed that you've done a lot of work about the CRCs. You did a really nice job in creating the Collegiate Rugby Championship page. I've recently given myself a mini-project where I'm trying create/improve the pages on the various CRCs, and make them uniform and inclusive. Would you be interested in collaborating with me on this? Wall Screamer (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Barry, nice work on creating the pools for the 2012 CRC. I've been a little busy, and don't have any experience creating tables on Wikipedia, so good job taking the initiative.

One thing I've noticed that I think we should work on is that the hyperlinks to various team pages are inconsistent across the various CRC pages. For example, on this section of the 2012 CRC page and on its listing on the main CRC page, "Notre Dame" links to Notre Dame Fighting Irish. However, on this section of the 2012 CRC page, "Notre Dame" links to Notre Dame Rugby Football Club. I propose that for the sake of accuracy and consistency, we create a definitive list of links to all CRC teams, linking as close to info on the rugby page as possible. i.e. link to a page on the school rugby team (if it exists), then the rugby section on the school's athletics page (if it exists), the athletics page itself (if it exists), and finally the university page. How about the list on the main CRC page can serve as the reference list, and once we go through and fix it we can modify all the links on the other pages accordingly. Or is there maybe some template that we can create for this? Tell me what you think.

Also, I noticed on the 2010 CRC, you used the same citation multiple times. When doing this, you want to make a ref name for that citation. See Wikipedia:Citation_templates#Using_the_same_footnote_multiple_times for a guide. And don't worry about making the mistake- I just figured it out myself two weeks ago :D. Wall Screamer (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wall Screamer - thanks for the feedback on 2012 CRC page, next I'll probably add an Infobox to the page. I have no idea how to create tables either, so I just copied the tables from the 2011 page, pasted the tables into the 2012 page, and then edited the tables to make them current. I agree completely with your suggestions re improving hyperlinks, so let's work on those. I will also try to work on my citations, which I know is a weak point of mine. Barryjjoyce (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why some of the information in the Sports in Cleveland section from Cleveland needs to be removed. If anything, that's the minimum and could be used as a starting point for a much larger expansion for Sports in Cleveland. For example, the sentences about Cleveland State should remain in the Cleveland article, and then the Sports in Cleveland article could provide a section of coverage about Cleveland State sports. However, I do agree that other parts could be trimmed. In addition, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Splitting, in case you weren't already aware. Best, Spencer^T♦C 09:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I actually think this was a good idea. The sports scene in in Cleveland has almost a life of it's own, and having it's own article is is something I wished I had thought of doing...nice job. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Barryjjoyce. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, United States national rugby union team player statistics, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please desist from further edit warring on the above article and discuss your issues on the article's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'd not seen that discussion and it does clarify the issue. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, saw that you reverted my edit in the MLS expansion article. I think you're referring to my edit here. I deleted the section because, like you point out, it didn't make sense to have a section about a sale in an expansion article, but I think a similar content in the Chivas/RSL section makes sense as a way to show the result of the expansion. Basically, same content, different intent and context. Mosmof (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mosmof: Thanks for bringing the discussion to the talk page. Let me start by saying you've been doing great work on the MLS Expansion article. But this article is not about MLS ownership changes. There have been many ownership changes over the years, and they are not reported in the Expansion article, nor should they be. If you want to write about MLS ownership changes, the best place may be here or here. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response. Though the point wasn't so much that the ownership changed, but that the parties involved acknowledged that the expansion failed and needed a reboot. I think it's worth mentioning how an expansion franchise turned out, especially in a unique case like the Chivas where the league felt compelled to take over rather than wait for a buyer to emerge, just like we have a subsection for the two Florida teams that were dissolved. Mosmof (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the Chivas situation is not unique. There have been several other times in MLS history when the league has owned a team, but those episodes are not discussed in this article. As I mentioned last time, there are other MLS related articles where ownership changes are discussed, so you should feel free to add the material there. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm missing something, it's the only case a team went from an outside owner to league ownership (San Jose Clash started as a league-owned team before AEG took over). And it's one of just two expansion team that "failed" (i.e. the owner stepped down/removed before a buyer could be found). Mosmof (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm still opposed to your adding the discussion of an ownership change to the Expansion article, for the reasons already stated above. An ownership change is quite different from a league contraction. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Barry, with regard to your recent edit to Heineken Cup. I am not sure how relevant Players in bold are still active. is, but you have made some errors. Peter Stringer, for example, is still playing (for Bristol, just renewed for another season http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_9219863,00.html). I am sure there are more errors. Hamish59 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have fixed Peter Stringer. Thank you. Do you want to check the rest of them as well? Hamish59 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Barryjjoyce! I was going to take a look at this article for its GA review, however on a quick pass I am seeing numerous paragraphs that are mostly or completely unsourced. Ordinarily, this would result in a quick fail of the review. However, given the size of the backlog and the fact that it has waited in the queue for four months, I wanted to give you a chance to take a pass over this article and bring the sourcing up to snuff before doing so. If you feel you will not have the time to handle this within the next few days, then I will fail the nomination with a promise to do a fast GA review on a future nomination of this article when you do have time. Thanks, Resolute 23:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I should add also that a once-over on the prose looks like it might be beneficial as well. There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs, and a couple spots that appear to be written in proseline, which could be improved. Resolute 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looking better, but there are still several paragraphs that end without citations. (i.e.: Four of the seven paragraphs in the "Establishment" section end with uncited statements, three under "Stadiums" and others sprinkled throughout). That said, the overall look appears sufficient for a full GA review. I likely won't have the time to sit down and read this article in detail today, but will try to do so tomorrow. In the meantime, it would be helpful if those remaining uncited statements are fixed up. Thanks, Resolute 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Most statements require citations regardless of where they appear in the prose. It isn't that all paragraphs must end with citations so much as I felt that WP:V required that most of those statements required citations. Regardless, I am going to start the full review now. It won't be completed today, but I will get some feedback for you. Thanks, Resolute 22:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good! I will look to complete the review later today. Thanks! Resolute 13:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Major League Soccer 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 Legobot, on behalf of Resolute -- Resolute (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article Major League Soccer you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Major League Soccer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Resolute -- Resolute (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the citation on the stub and it seems that the language used by the stub is too similar to the citation (copy/paste). I decided to remove my CSD because the subject is notable and the stub can be improved. That's all. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. :) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm posting here to follow up on the recent Village Pump discussion, archived here, to move pronunciations and other info out of article lead sections. I'm inviting editors who participated in that discussion to comment on the Manual of Style:Lead section guideline. If you would like to participate, please add your comments to the discussion. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

 

fair sports
Thank you for quality articles on rugby from college (Big Ten Universities) to international Al Caravelli and Tim Mikkelson, for "Use the talk page to discuss, not the article itself", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1030 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 1030 of Precious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I saw that you had changed a number of "importance" tags for Rob Friend from "mid" to "low". Curious as to what criteria you're using to make these adjustments. From the person who categorized it as "mid" and used Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale as the scale, it would seem that an international footballer who played at the top level for nearly his entire career ticks those boxes. Curious to hear your side, thanks! –GauchoDude (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

For being rather overzealous on Gedion Zelalem; I take BLP enforcement extremely seriously, and hadn't been able to find a satisfactory source for the claims until you presented it in your last comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on making a great start on this article. As I speak Spanish, I may be able to help you out with further enhancements but would first like to give you some time to make your own improvements. In particular, as a seasoned editor, you will realize that more incline references would be helpful. Also, the article in the Spanish wiki provides much more background -- although not always backed by citations. I'm impressed that someone primarily interested in Rugby suddenly turns to Spanish architecture. Well done!--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit tied down with work on Denmark at the moment but when I have a bit more time I would be happy to help you promote Madrid to GA. I have had fairly close contacts with the city since the early 1960s and have seen it develop significantly since then. One of the main problems with the article seems to be lack of inline citations. Some sections of the text seem rather dated; some of it does not seem to have been significantly touched since 2006/7. The prose could also do with some improvement. I fully support your attempts to reduce the length of the article by splitting some of it off, etc.--Ipigott (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your edits to the Tampa, Florida article really cleaned it up. Thanks for your hard work. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Kudos on adding BLP-violating material and OR/POV to this article... GiantSnowman 11:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Barry. Just to let you know that I've belatedly replied to your comments about the featured article status of Premier League. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Barry, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind having a look at some of the 2015 requests for assessment. I see you have done so in the past and it doesn't look as though many of the pages are being re-assessed at the moment. User:Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2015 (GMT)

 

The article American coaches of foreign national soccer teams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N, WP:LISTCRUFT. Information more easily conveyed by categorisation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

The article American professional soccer players abroad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Adequately covered by Category:American expatriate soccer players, doesn't merit a separate article as it is non-notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 08:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American coaches of foreign national soccer teams 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/American coaches of foreign national soccer teams 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. GiantSnowman 08:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American professional soccer players abroad 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/American professional soccer players abroad 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. GiantSnowman 09:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orange County, California, in popular culture 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/Orange County, California, in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply