User talk:Sbaio/Archive 2017

Hello,Are you sure about edit 758118335 (FK Žalgiris colors fix)? Official site provides this data - RGB 2/76/38 ([1]), which at least for me transposes into #024C26. Respublik (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Respublik: They give the wrong values, because the logo has #044C20 as its color. I really don't care and don't have any desire to fight over this. I suppose the team don't know themselves what are the correct values. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#League specifiers in the basketball player infobox Rikster2 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello,Out of curiosity, why did you revert my edit on List of current National Football League stadiums? I realize the Chargers stadium is a temporary home, I can make that more clear.

@TdanTce: You surely have to know what "newest" means. However, after your question I'm not sure myself if it's supposed to be most recently opened stadium or never used before stadium. I suppose this must be determined somewhere (WP:NFL most likely). – Sabbatino (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Good point. Perhaps something like, "The StubHub Center will serve as an NFL stadium for the first time in 2017 as the home field of the Los Angeles Chargers for two seasons."? I'll let you tweak this and add it in if you think it works. TdanTce (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@TdanTce: I somehow think that it shouldn't be added until the season ends when the Super Bowl LI takes place. As for the wording I think it should just replace the Vikings' stadium when the current season ends. However, I read some reports that this isn't final and NFL teams' owners might not approve this move. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the edits you made to my entry for the DEVILS-FLAMES game, specifically the hyphen. I noticed it is slightly wider than the hyphen I put in. I have used both the hyphen and the minus sign on the number pad, and after I save it, it still appears smaller than the others. Is that some special character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsiderT (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@OutsiderT: There are 3 types of such characters used on Wikipedia: - (read hyphen), – (read ndash) and — (read mdash). All of them can be found under the editing window. The first is – or ndash (this is what you're asking me about). The second one is — or mdash. And almost in the middle you can find - or hyphen. I hope this is clear, but you're always welcome in asking more about this. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey, look here. Kante4 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kante4: But here and on the Sharks' stats page it's different. Looks like the NHL are not consistent themselves. I always add what is shown on team's stats page. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So, that do we do? I personally would take the nhl one over the team one, maybe a discussion at the hockey portal? Kante4 (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kante4: You could try bringing it up at the project, but I'm not really sure if people will be interested in this. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the same. Maybe at one point or at the end of the season the stats are correct. Kante4 (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I read it as "NJ Devils" for some reason. I see now it was just "NJ". However, the link I added is working for me - I just tested and double checked it. If you would like to switch back though, by all means, go ahead. Only thing I ask is you use the same formatting as the rest of the article (though if you just want to put the old one in, I can format it after). Doesn't matter to me. Sorry about that. -Uncleben85 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: No problem. Just wanted to ask about it. Strange. For some reason www.nbcsports.com/nhl works perfectly, but when I click on the source that you included, it doesn't load. Tried it on other 2 computers at home and it's the same. I even tried it on my mobile phone, but I get the same result. Maybe something is wrong with my Wi-Fi connection? Because I can load it on my phone when I use mobile data instead of home's Wi-Fi. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that truly is bizarre! -Uncleben85 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Here for an opinion. As you're most likely aware given your close curation of Johnny U's page, when we list MVPs in the infobox we make no distinction between the selectors, and instead group them all into one. Bagumba and I had come up with this convention sometime last year because we felt it would be better to avoid the "alphabet soup" that built up with the previous convention. I've been adamantly maintaining it, but I don't think I can do it anymore in good conscience. Whether right or wrong, the vast majority of casual NFL fans believe the AP MVP award is and always has been the definitive MVP award, so when they see "4x NFL MVP" in Unitas' infobox, they'll assume he won the same award 4 times. So now I'm contemplating between two choices: separate the MVP awards in the infobox (as I've already done on Y.A. Tittle and Earl Campbell) or only include the AP's award (starting with the year it was first given). I just can't decide. Lizard (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Are you sure you wanted to post this here? Just wanted to ask as other users don't have this message from you. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I can see how this seems like it came out of nowhere. I assumed you were on board with the current convention since you made this edit. I'm testing the waters a bit. My experience with WP:NFL is usually that I post there asking for input and get zilch response. So this is how I normally do it instead. Lizard (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Thanks for clarification, because I was sure that this was some kind of mistake. Now going to the subject – I think that MVP awards should be separated to avoid any confusion. I'm also getting tired of this and it should be determined for once how it should be listed. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard:"I've been adamantly maintaining it, but I don't think I can do it anymore in good conscience": It's not so much conscience, but rather you have the energy to patrol and educate driveby editors who will likely not know or not care (or both) about prior discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the previous discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_13#Do_we_need_to_standardize_highlights.3F.—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What I meant by good conscience is I felt like I was giving players such as Tittle undue recognition by stating he was a 4-time MVP. While there are some sources that credit him with four (see the discussion you linked), most credit him with either 1, 2, or 3. And there's no discernible consensus between sources either. I'm aware that the infobox generally shouldn't be for fine details, but readers probably aren't. So my dilemma is 1.) weighing the reader's expectation against a flawed and contentious reality and 2.) weighing the value of infobox conciseness against a longer and more inclusive infobox. Lizard (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Johnny U's situation. The Colts list Unitas as having won 3 MVP awards. Pro Football Hall of Fame also list him with 3 MVP awards. On the other hand, NFL list Unitas with 2 MVP awards (1964 and 1967), and now I'm confused by the MVP system in the NFL as Unitas, Butkus and several other players are on my watchlist specifically of their Lithuanian heritage. To make it clear, I'm more of a basketball and ice hockey guy so my knowledge of American football is limited. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unitas' case is difficult on its own. Long story short: no one agrees on who won the first 4 AP MVP awards, or if the first 4 MVP awards count at all. Thank the AP for screwing that one up royally. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How come you removed the album after? Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Which album are you talking about? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Live at Oz Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the same situation as 6 songs, which was released by the label as a promo material. I restored the redirect to The Electric Age album and inserted the source from Live from OZ where it's appropriate. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah cool just wondered what made you change your mind. Thanks anyway. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

We may have a problem at List of current NHL captains and alternate captains, by the name of Elementra x. It's not a good sign, when an editor refuses to respond to concerns & merely deletes contacts on their userpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: We do. Boston Bruins' article was also disrupted by this user. And the fact that he/she ignores the warnings just means that this user doesn't belong here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, I would like to invite you to participate in this discussion on Lithuania. Supreme Dragon (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this, see this list. For several months I've been battling what I assume is the same vandal using multiple IPs, based on patterns. These patterns include subtle infobox changes to team tenures, pro bowl appearances, championships, and other highlights, all of which are easily verifiably false. The edits will sometimes be mixed in with some legitimate ones. Frequent targets are players from the 60s and 70s. Because the changes are usually so subtle they can go unnoticed for weeks or months. It's a real pain. Just making sure you're aware, so keep an eye out. Lizard (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Lizard the Wizard: I am aware of this list, but thanks for reminding me about it, because I totally forgot about it and did not have a thought that this IP might be that person. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have access to the NHL Media website? Where are you getting your HTML color code information for the New York Rangers from? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

From the logo itself. For some reason NHL's website has the wrong logo (this is not the first time). As for NHL media website, I can not access it as I am not a resident of Canada or the U.S. And as for the website itself, there is nothing color-related at that place. Have a couple of old media directory guides and there is not one word about colors or their values. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Sabbatino (talk), I was curious as to how you derived the HTML or HEX color codes for the Detroit Pistons, as seen in this diff? I know it hasn't been updated yet, but the Pistons' Reproduction Guideline Sheet still says Pantone 293 is  #006BB6  for Royal Blue and Pantone 199 is  #ED174C  for Red. Please explain? Thanks. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, stop edit warring again. Looks like 1 week was not enough for you (that's just and observation). Secondly, I use either Photoshop or Illustrator to extract the color codes, which were taken from the logo itself. Thirdly, that "Pistons' Reproduction Guideline Sheet" is outdated as they revealed their new logo and changed the colors. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I just wanted to know how you did things. Please feel free to revert my edits at Module:Basketball color/data and at Detroit Pistons. I am sorry for reverting your edits. I won't revert them again. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I went ahead and self-reverted my edits at Module:Basketball color/data and also at Detroit Pistons, both back to your latest versions. I'm sorry for any problems or issues I may have caused with this. I don't want to engage in an edit-war with you, so that's why I did this. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, would you object if I changed the colors to  #003DA6  (for royal blue) &  #DD0031  (for red) at Module:Basketball color/data & Detroit Pistons? I'm basing these HTML color codes on the Pistons' logo at Stats.NBA.com (Direct URL link; right-click and select 'Inspect Element (Q)' in Firefox to view the color codes). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I think that it would be best to keep current or older colors until the "Pistons' Reproduction Guideline Sheet" gets updated by the NBA. We do not need to go back and forth with the color changes if we do not know the correct values. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

My edit on Triple Crown of Motorsport isn't a duplicate info. If you look at the 2 tables you'll see that only 5 of the 24 drivers appears on both tables.The first table list the drivers who have won at least 2 events. For the majority of them, they have/had no chance to win the Triple Crown because they never competed in the three legs ! (ex : Juan-Pablo Montoya, Emerson Fittipaldi, Mike Hawthorn...)I added a table which list the only 17 drivers in history who had a real possibility to win the Triple Crown because they competed in all three legs and have won at least one event! Graham Hill (who won the three legs) and Jochen Rindt are the only the 2 drivers who have won at least 2 legs and competed in the 3. You can't see this information in the first table. Therefore, you can't say that it's a duplicate info ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness00 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness00: Why do you think your table is better and why do you have the need to include people that won only once in any of the events? Listing people who won 2 of 3 events is enough, because they were/are closest to reaching TCM. Moreover, you added the same information with more people (I already explained earlier) and that coloring is hideous. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: I never say that my table is better; I think the 2 are great. You can find in the article that “17 drivers in motorsports history have competed in all three legs of the Triple Crown and have won at least one of the events” but they are never mentioned in the article. I just added these competitors in a different table because they have accomplished something rare in motorsport history. And as I already explained, for the vast majority, these drivers are not listed in the first table. I understand your point, but it’s clear that it’s 2 different tables with different information. And yes we can remove the colours if you think that’s too much.

@Darkness00: MoS advises not to use any colors in the table in order to maintain readability. As for having two different, but also almost the same tables – just combine them into one table. I already wrote in my earlier posts that we do not need multiple tables with almost the same information. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness00: Just want to inform you that you should really consider discussing this at Talk:Triple Crown of Motorsport as it is clear that there are more people who might be and most certainly are interested in this discussion. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, When you reverted my edit on the article's International Ice Hockey Competition infobox you wrote: "Per documentation of the template we use the number and not the name"

I checked out the infobox template and the only documentation I see is an example with two venues and the alternative name for the field. Am I missing something?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@SaskatchewanSenator: 1 , 2 or multiple venues, but I am pretty sure that the documentation applies the same to all instances. It would be better to discuss such thing at the template or at 2016 World Cup of Hockey talk pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That's just an example. There is no documentation that prohibits using an arena name in that field.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@SaskatchewanSenator: That is the Wikipedia-wide practice across all sport-related articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like we will be able to resolve this here. As you suggested, I'll discuss this elsewhere.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering where exactly did you find your source for the Lithuanian prospects that decided they wouldn't enter the NBA Draft this year? I ask because I've been looking all over the place for confirmed international prospects that decided to not enter the 2017 NBA Draft, but aside from a few prospects in mind, I haven't found anything at all! – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@AGreatPhoenixSunsFan: This article, which is from the official NBA website in Lithuania, confirms that all Lithuanian prospects have withdrawn from this year's draft. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

This source shows the upcoming scheduled events at the Joe, with the WWE show being the last event that is scheduled.PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 02:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not good faith to delete someone's conversation on your talk page. I wanted actual conversation on why you deleted my information

PUNKMINKIS (TALKYTALK) 01:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Punkminkis: Firstly, this is my OWN talk page so I can delete whatever I want. Secondly, just because it shows that event at the bottom of that page, it does not mean that it is the last event. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding Polish names (or rather restoring them after they were removed by anon) in line with WP:OTHERNAMES.

Polish was the sole official language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (since 1697) and the Second Polish Republic (Vilnius region), the administrative language in the Congress Poland (Suvalkija), the Vilna Governorate (until 1830s) and the language of the upper classes in Lithuania (before Lithuanian National Revival). Because of this, historical sources often use Polish (not Lithuanian) place names, so do present-day scholars when writing about certain historical periods. Knowledge of Polish names makes reading scholarly literature and wiki-disambiguation much easier. Let me explain it to you with some quotes:

Artūras Vasiliauskas: "It seems reasonable to use Lithuanian geographical and personal names in Polish, the language of the sources, which also dominated the public life in the Polish– Lithuanian Commonwealth. Usage of modern forms would cause major confusion since these names come from several countries in the region, and each of these countries has its own tradition of recording the same geographical and personal names. Therefore even some internationally established modern Lithuanian forms, such as Vilnius or Kaunas as well Belarusian place-names are rendered in Polish, except in bibliographical information." ("The practice of citizenship among the Lithuanian nobility, ca 1580-1630", [2])

Richard Butterwick: "For place names, the principle adopted here is to use the language of the dominant culture at the time, unless there is an acceptable English version, such as Warsaw or Cracow. (...) By the eighteenth century, the preferred language of the Commonwealth elites was Polish everywhere except among the Germaphone urban patriciates of Royal Prussia. ("The Polish Revolution and the Catholic Church, 1788-1792: A Political History, [3])

Publications about the Second Polish Republic and the Holocaust in the territories of occupied Poland (Vilnius region) usually employ Polish place names too.

Many of those places are obviously of historical importance for both Poland and Lithuania. For example, Vepriai (Wieprze) belonged to Ogiński family and Kapčiamiestis (Kopciowo) is the place of burial of Emilia Plater, in Šeteniai (Szetejnie) Czesław Miłosz was born, while Lazdijai (Łoździeje), among others, was granted rights by Polish kings.

The anon I mentioned earlier removed tens of alternative Polish place names and I have so far restored only some of them (and added sources).

If we continue to disagree, perhaps WP:RFC or third opinion would be in order. Hedviberit (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedviberit: Thanks for clarification. I agree that historical names should be used at history-related pages (Wilno Uprising (1794) or similar), but I do not agree with such usage at village/town/city pages, because those are minor and those forms, for example Vepriai (Wieprze) and others, should only be used at the pages related to it – Ogiński family, Emilia Plater and so on – but not at Vepriai page itself (or any other for that matter). The usage of foreign names (Polish in this instance) across many Lithuanian village/town/city pages is a sensitive topic and that leads to edit wars, which is not good to both sides involved.

The Narutowicz brothers might be a good example. Gabriel was a Polish politician, while Stanisław was a Lithuanian politician, so Lithuanian forms should be used in Stanisław's page. Even their pages state that their family were Lithuanian nobility, but Polonized their name as that was the trend at those times. Do you catch my drift? – Sabbatino (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It makes sense that if a certain form of a place name is correct in historical context (for the reasons I explained above) then it deserves to be mentioned at this city/town/village page (as historical/other significant name).

There will always be a risk of edit war. For some people only complete removal of Polish forms from Lithuania-related articles would be satisfactory. Names used at history-related and biographical pages are even more vulnerable to deletion. For example, the article about Emilia Plater used to have Polish names in brackets, but not anymore.

I am aware it can be a sensitive topic, nevertheless, it shouldn't be in my opinion. There are Lithuanian, German, Yiddish, Ukrainian, Belarusian versions of names in many articles about Polish cities/towns/villages, and there is nothing wrong with that. It's telling that the recent wave of removal of Polish names was accompanied by adding Lithuanian names to Polish and Belarusian articles (I'm not against it).

I would limit the usage of alternative names to settlements that are important for Polish history/culture or/and were included in the Congress Poland and the Second Polish Republic (parts of Suvalkija and Vilnius region). This is a relatively small fraction of all Lithuanian city/town/village pages and the status quo at the moment. Hedviberit (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hedviberit: Good point, but I still think it should not be blindly applied to every single page.

Now regarding Emilija Pliaterytė – the "was a Polish noblewoman and revolutionary from the lands of the partitioned Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." part should be changed to "was a noblewoman and revolutionary from the lands of the partitioned Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." That should be done in order to remove any conflicts, because she was of Lithuanian and Polish nobility, but the current opening sentence implies that she was mainly Polish, while the article itself states otherwise, and only Polish sources are used as references, which is also sort of pro-Polish. I have seen the same approach on various other pages of Lithuanian, Polish or Belarusian national heroes. So I will go ahead and change it to keep neutrality between the three nations. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As you may have noticed I've been working on Dick Butkus' article. I see you included info on his being inducted into the National Lithuanian American Hall of Fame and cited it with a primary source. Though not completely necessary, I try to make sure all citations are to secondary, independent sources such as news articles. I'm having trouble finding one for this induction though, or even his membership. If you could find one it'd be appreciated. Lizard (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I have seen and I appreciate your work on his page. I originally included the primary source for the Lithuanian American HOF, because that is the only source I could find at the time. However, at this very moment I searched and found this source. It does not add anything what we could not find in the primary source, but it is still something. If there is no good secondary source then I suppose one primary source will not hurt. As for his induction, I could only find a YouTube video, which was posted by the HOF itself. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

At first glance I wasn't sure that was an RS, but it looks like that source is by Suburban Life Media which is a newspaper publisher in Chicago, so it's definitely usable. As you said, on the surface it doesn't add anything that the primary source doesn't include, but I personally like to use secondary sources because they imply the significance of events. An independent source reporting on it confirms its significance. Lizard (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: No problem. Glad I could help. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a request for you, Sabbatino (talk): could you please update the logo for the Indiana Pacers at File:Indiana_Pacers.svg? My URL references are Stats.NBA.com and MediaCentral.NBA.com (see the global logo at the NBA Media Central URL). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I have that logo in place, but shouldn't we wait for an official announcement? I also have the Spurs', Pistons' and the Trail Blazers' logos. I could upload all three, but I'm not sure if there won't be any people against it (Pacers and Spurs logos). Same with the Cavaliers' logo, but I'm pretty sure some people will start crying... – Sabbatino (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I went ahead and updated all the logos that I mentioned above. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Thank you so much for uploading the new NBA team logos! I appreciate your efforts greatly. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to inform you that I have reverted your changes on the Charlotte Hornets as I found your edits to be excessive and unexplained. Thanks, Ontheroad1957 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ontheroad1957: And I have reverted your action since you did not give any reason and all that information can be found at Charlotte Hornets accomplishments and records. Do not edit if you are not familiar with the subject or at least get familiar with it. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,What has been talked? Toro Rosso are using a Renault engine and not a Toro Rosso engine, since contrary to Red Bull the engine hasn't been rebadged. Give me the link if you want to where it has been discussed.RafaelS1979 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: How about here or here? – Sabbatino (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

In a recent edit to the page 2017 NFL season, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Ireland, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: You could have just said the difference instead of giving this silly warning. Since English is not my native language, I could not possibly know all the differences between the varieties of English ("champion" and "champions" in this instance). You should also know that you should not template the regulars – Sabbatino (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 14:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Hi there, I'm a graphic designer from Cape Town busy updating South African logos. Apparently my SVG files are still too large even though I save my files in Adobe Illustrator to a maximum of 100 pixels. When I upload a file to Wikipedia the size jumps to 512 pixels, even though the size is 1 KB small, for example: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Progressive_Federal_Party. Do you have any advice how I can limit the size to under 300 pixels? Regards (Vectorebus (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

@Vectorebus: After saving the .svg file you have to change the source by hand. You have to open "Name.svg" in Notepad and change the values there. I am not an expert at this myself, so I advise you to ask at Wikipedia:SVG help. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to invite you to read the RfC here. The discussion was closed with clear consensus that "the usage of vertical and horizontal templates does not fall within the purview of WP:CITEVAR." Additionally, several editors expressed support for the view that it is okay to change a citation from one (vertical or horizontal) to the other, but if that change is reverted, the citation should be left alone. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of such RfC. However, I feel you could have said the same in the edit summary by pointing to the RfC. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, my bad, that's a good point. Rockypedia (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:BC Nevėžis current roster has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Last thing I want is to get into an editing war, so figured I'd bring it here. First off, I didn't realize Robidas was being considered as a retirement on last year's page. I didn't even think to check that page, and that's on me. That said though, he didn't play last year but he never actually formally retired - his contract stayed intact and continued until the end of the year (June 31, 2017), just like all of our other free agents. Even since then, he has not formally filed for retirement with the League (not that has been reported at least), and is a free agent, signed to a non-hockey contract with the Maple Leafs. As for the other players, the table is for "Free Agents Lost" - Michalek, Hartikainen, and Toninato were all players under Toronto reserve who have been lost to free agency. I guess the argument can be made for Michalek that he hasn't signed anywhere, therefore he hasn't been lost, but both Hartikainen and Toninato have signed on elsewhere. We may not have had them under contract, but we had their exclusive rights and now that has been lost to unrestricted free agency, just like it was with Boyle, Oleksy, Bibeau, etc. I think listing those transactions are more true to the purpose of the page, but I'm not certainly not gonna go back and edit it again against consensus - however, with that said, if Toninato doesn't count, Walker defintely shouldn't. –uncleben85 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Stéphane Robidas did not announce his retirement, but joining the Maple Leafs' front office effectively ended his career as a player. Milan Michálek did not sign with any team as of today, so he is not lost, because he could re-sign with the Maple Leafs. The "Free agent lost" section is for players that signed with some other team. As for Teemu Hartikainen, he has never been signed by the Maples Leafs. The Leafs only have rights to him, but he is/was not part of the team at any point, so he is not lost. And we have a similar situation with Dominic Toninato, who was never signed by the Maple Leafs either. Yes, he was drafted by them, but was not part of the team. Here is a clarification about Toninato and the Maple Leafs. His situation is similar to Jimmy Vesey's, who was drafted by the Predators, but never signed by them. Therefore, he is not lost to anyone. I actually agree that Walker does not belong there either since he has never signed with the Maple Leafs, and should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I get the whole Toninato situation and what that means, and think that it only solidifies my stance for me. Michalek I can understand because, like Polak, he could come back, but for Toninato, Walker, and Hartikainen, they did not have contracts, but they were still part of the organization, and we had their exclusive negotiation rights, and their departure to other teams should be reflected on the page. Colorado, for example could only sign Toninato because we lost him. They may not have been part of the daily "team" but they were very much part of the organization up until this off-season. Their rights were tradeable assets, meaning they had inherent value to the team that we no longer have. Similarly, that's why I feel like Robidas' departure should not be marked on last year's page either; Robidas' rights were tradeable assets until the very end, and his contract had cap and IR implications. He was very much a part of organizational juggling of contracts and finances, and therefore had an inherent value until the expiration of his contract. Obviously we are coming at this from two very different positions though; me as a bottom-line, organization-as-a-whole approach, and you thinking more about the "team" and the consequences in terms of roster composition. What I really like about my perspective though is it just provides more information to the reader. It leaves nothing cut out and there's no information missing, but I can agree to disagree and keep it as is. At the end of the day, it's pretty inconsequential! –uncleben85 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Having rights ≠ signed. If they played for one of the Leafs' affiliates then it would make sense listing them, but not now when they were drafted by the team, but did not sign a contract. The Leafs did not lose Toninato since they did not sign a contract with him (link to article about it included in my previous post). As I said – Jimmy Vesey's situation all over it. Just to clarify, pages like TSN, ESPN and others tend to show some team's logo next to an event (signing, trade, retirement, etc.) even if a player has never been signed by it. I do not know if you are familiar with NBA, but it is similar situation to NHL – teams can trade rights to a player as many times as they want if that player has not signed and remained in some other league. Those rights are renounced as soon as player retires, the team renounces them, or a player plays for that team and becomes a free agent. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Trust me, I understand how NHL transactions work. I'm not saying "rights = signed", nor is that my point. My point is "rights = part of the team". If a player signed, you own that's players rights until they become UFA (or are traded) and they are a part of your team; signed and owning rights are not mutually exclusive. The section is "Free Agents Lost", not "Signed Players Lost" - as per the CBA (section 8.6 I believe it is) a player unsigned out of the draft becomes an "Unrestricted Free Agent" if the Club does not sign said player within the given time frame (ie. Walker and Toninato, and even Vesey). It says the same thing about defected RFAs like Hartikainen when their rights expire. To imply that they are not part of the team because they are unsigned is just nonsensical - to say they were not lost from the organization is just wrong, as they were part of our 90-man roster and are now lost from that list and we no longer have the right to their services. Also, just for the record, teams cannot renounce rights. If they have no plan on signing/re-signing a player, they have to wait until the natural expiration of the rights or negotiate a termination if a contract already exists. –uncleben85 (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Bottom line is – they were never signed by the team. So officially they were never part of the team, and being drafted does not give that privilege. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be rude, but according to whom? I can just as easily say, bottom line is - they were drafted by the team and therefore they have the privilege of being part of the team. Really it's coming down to your opinion versus mine, but logistically I don't see how "they don't have contracts therefore they aren't part of the team" is the right stance when the whole point of drafting players is to gain exclusive rights so that the player can be a part of your team and nobody else's. In other words, let's look at Joe Woll for an example. If he's not part of our organization (because he hasn't signed a contract) then whose team is a member of (at the NHL level; he's certainly not a UFA)?–uncleben85 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: You should really read it again. Being drafted does not give access to being part of the team. And same goes for Woll – he is the member of Boston College Eagles with his rights being held by the Maples Leafs, but he is certainly not signed with the Maple Leafs at any level. Official announcements about the signing are the only verifiable information, while all other "thoughts about the supposed situation" are original research, which has no place here. Just read the NHL rules regarding this matter, because I have no time arguing with you nor I wish for this discussion to continue as you keep ignoring what is written to you. In addition, ask about it at WikiProject Ice Hockey instead of here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not ignored what you've said once; each time I have addressed your point about the players being unsigned and have tried to explain to you that I understand that. And so I repeat myself: You keep telling me they were not signed. I am not refuting that; that is not up for debate; I agree with you; the players in question were not signed. However, the article in question is not "Which Players have signed with the Maple Leafs", the article instead deals with which players the Maple Leafs held the rights to and now do not, end of story. Toninato and Walker fit that description as they were previously a part of the Maple Leafs organization (as they were drafted, were on Toronto's 90-man reserve roster, in the NHL database as Maple Leafs, and had their exclusive rights held by the Maple Leafs - albeit all without contracts), and now they are no longer a part of the Maple Leafs organization as they were "lost via free agency". To suggest that an unsigned player is not part of an organization is the closest thing to "original research" in this argument. I have read the NHL rules and CBA many times, and nowhere the does it suggest that an unsigned drafted player does not count as part of the organization, and, in fact, a large portion of the CBA is dedicated to detailing the fact that unsigned drafted players ARE a part of an organization until the time they are lost to unrestricted free agency, just as a signed player is eventually lost to unrestricted free agency. I even provided a relevant section of CBA so as to demonstrate this is not just conjecture and original research. If you have a resource that tells me an unsigned player is not an official part of an organization please share it with me. TL;DR: The section in question is "free agents lost", of which Toninato and Walker fit that description quite literally. If you do not want to include them because you feel it is inconsequential to the season, that is one thing, but your reasoning is highly flawed. –uncleben85 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Looks like I already advised you to discuss this matter at WikiProject Ice Hockey since our opinions differ? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I deferred to you on the page that you were working on and stopped editing it. Please do not come over to my project page and edit it because you disagree with me. My page tracks the transactions of players' rights. Toninato's rights transferred from Toronto to Colorado, and it does not matter if he was signed or not, just like I would include him in a trade (see Dallas trading Dylan Ferguson to Vegas as en example) if his rights were traded, despite not being signed. –uncleben85 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, that is not "your" project nor did you create that page. Secondly, you can not claim ownership as that is against Wikipedia's whole point, and that could easily get you blocked. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't act like you don't know exactly why I am talking about Sab. It's not my page but it's a project you've had no interest in until you came over and saw that I was a main editor there, and then elected to edit the one bit of relevant information that we were talking about just to pick a fight. It was childish vandalism. And don't threaten me - if you've got a problem, report it. I'm sure they'll see I was referring to the project that I choose to undertake as my pet project, not that I own the page, and that you were the instigator coming in and removing relevant information out of spite, and not in good faith. Now we're both circling the drains of bad faith and incivility so let's just drop it and do our own things. I'll stick with the NHL's viewpoint that unsigned prospects are part of their respective teams, and you do whatever you want to do on your page. –uncleben85 (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you again claim ownership. Secondly, I did not go and view history so I can not possibly see that you were involved. I found the link for this page at the bottom of 2017–18 NHL season page so your accusations could be considered as personal attacks and I could easily report you. Thirdly, you are the one who is assuming bad faith and incivility. It is also strange that a completely new user just showed up and wrote on my talk page and then did the same at yours. It must be someone who has been stalking this discussion and I can easily suspect that it could be you, but I am not going to waste my time and play this childish game, which you like. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that your worked on British Basketball League page. Can you please review and move to the main area Joe Ikhinmwin article? Thank you in advance. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I still can't find an official release from the NHL or the Florida Panthers regarding the Anthony Greco signing, however multiple third-party outlets are reporting it, including CapFriendly, and then today, the NHL.com database was updated to include "Florida Panthers" on Greco's player profile page. The addition to his profile page would not have happened unless a deal was formalized, but I figured I'd get a second opinion before changing the Panthers 2017/18 page. –uncleben85 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: Neither Panthers, Thunderbirds or the NHL announced anything about his signing (official release or any mention in some article). Even TSN, Sportsnet, ESPN or any other media outlet did not write anything about him. The Panthers' roster page does not list him either. There is an article at ProHockeyRumors.com, which claims that he was signed, but the page's name says it all – rumor. And the big question is – how reliable is CapFriendly? I assume it is not official for now so he should not be listed until any announcement is made. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

CapFriendly is not official, however, NHL.com themselves have sourced CapFriendly a number of times (which is dumb, imo, as article writers on NHL.com should have access to that info and not have to go through CapFriendly... example), and that's why I elected not to edit the signing back in to the Panthers page, HOWEVER, Greco being in the NHL's database as a Panther says a lot. Teams don't always release articles, especially about minor transactions. –uncleben85 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: There are teams that do not release any contract information so CapFriendly might get it wrong sometimes. In addition, some teams do "stealth" transactions. They do not issue an official announcement, but instead report signings/terminations/waivers in articles such as "Team X vs. Team Y: Preview", "Team X recall forward Mr. X from Team Y (AHL)" and similar or they announce such things on their Twitter accounts or accounts related to them (for example, Florida Panthers PR). However, nothing can be found about Greco's signing except for that rumor page. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That rumour page and the NHL database. That's the part I'm curious about. Would you accept Greco's official player page listing him as a Florida Panther as confirmation? –uncleben85 (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: I believe the best option is to include that report from rumors' website and place a Better source tag next to it. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Sabbatino. I changed the licensing on that file because it fails to meet the Threshold of originality. All it comprises is text. While the text can possibly be trademarked, it fails to raise to the level of a creative work that can attract copyright protection. Have a read through the Threshold of originality article for more information. But basically, anything you can type in text as a logo rarely rises to the level of something that can be copyrighted. Thus, things like File:Boeing full logo.svg, File:Pepsi_New.svg, and File:Coca-Cola logo.svg are all insufficiently creative to attract copyright. I've reverted your restoration of the non-free licensing. If you have questions, I'm happy to answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Text or no text, it still needs a fair use rationale. Otherwise, it will most likely be removed from Wikipedia by admins. I re-inserted it back so do not think about removing it again. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't need a rationale. If it's not a non-free file, no rationale is required. It won't be deleted for lacking a rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
• It's a moot point now anyway. I've pointed the World Touring Car Championship article to use the logo on Commons. This local version will be deleted under WP:CSD#F8. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: First of all, it is not a duplicate as you tagged it. Secondly, you could have pointed to the logo on Wikimedia Commons at the beginning. And all logos (free or non-free) must have a fair use rationale. I have encountered this many times when a logo without it is removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• The only difference is a slight variation in color, and I didn't tag it for F8 directly. I just consider it likely to be deleted under F8. Regardless, I promise you there is no requirement for a file that is not non-free to have a rationale. There is no such requirement anywhere in policy. If there were, then we would not be able to use any logos from Commons at all, such as the logos I linked to you above. If logos that are not copyrighted have been deleted for lacking a rationale, they were deleted in error. There is no such requirement anywhere. Non-free rationales are required only for non-free files, as the names imply. The specific piece of policy from which this comes from is Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria #10c. Since we are not using the file under terms of fair use law, we do not need a rationale indicating how we are claiming use under fair use law. That is the only place on the project where any requirement for a non-free rationale is stipulated, and it only applies to non-free files...not pd-text files. If that's insufficient proof, have a look through Category:Images with trademarks. You will find that images in that category that are marked with pd-text lack any rationales for use. Examples include File:105 9 radiohigh.jpg, File:ABCTV2001.png, File:1310NEWSlogo.png, and more. There are literally thousands of these. No rationale is required, I assure you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits to the entry for Dick Christy??. Here, you state "Actually, the name of the team at the time when a player or coach was part of the organization should be used. For example, the "St. Louis Rams" should link to History of the St. Louis Rams". But in this edit, you linked articles to the history page, and not to the team name.

So with Christy's entry, I pipelinked the Titans name to History of the New York Jets, because I was trying to follow along with your standard. You then reverted it to New York Titans (AFL), which just redirects to New York Jets. So which is it?

@Colonies Chris: made a compelling argument that the link should point to a historically relevant article. Simply linking to the name of the team at the time can be even more confusing, because there's even less consistency whether the name will link to the current franchise article or a history article. At least with my format, it was consistent throughout the article, and a reader had a reasonable expectation of knowing where he/she would land when they clicked on a link.

This is getting nowhere, as you and Chris seem to have different ideas what is the actual convention that needs to be used. Again, where was this decision made? Can you please link to the discussion? And if no discussion had begun, then it has to happen now, because this is frustrating, and it is redirecting my energy away from expanding the list to hashing out nitpicky details.caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Caknuck: If you actually took a look, you would have realised that I used a piped link instead of a redirect. Enter "St. Louis Rams" to the search bar and see where it takes you. Both me and Colonies Chris use the same format, but use different links to get the same result. It is not supposed to link to the "History of the..." page since some teams just do not have articles for their older incarnation (Titans/Jets) situation. This practice is used on sports-related articles in Wikipedia. Try finding the relevant discussion yourself, and if you fail then ask about it at WP:NFL. On a side note, you can always stop editing if that is so frustrating... – Sabbatino (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Both me and Colonies Chris use the same format, but use different links to get the same result. No, because he linked to the team name at the time of the players' tenures, and you linked to the history pages Different format, and different results. And when I tried to copy your format here (albeit with the wrong team name in the text of the pipelink), you reverted. That's why I picked the simplest method when starting work on the list. Because, when dealing with an article of this size, the more convoluted the naming conventions are, the more difficult it is maintain and update the article. As the link to New York Titans (AFL) illustrates, several incarnations just redirect to the main franchise article and several do not (see Tennessee Oilers, Chicago Staleys, etc.). All I want is consistency.

This practice is used on sports-related articles in Wikipedia. You say this like it's written in stone. If that's the case, please point me to where this decision has been made regarding NFL articles. You're making the assertion, so I'm politely asking you to back it up.

Finally, Christy represented the Titans in 1962 (not '63), before the name change, as evidenced here. The game was played on, and the name change took place on April 15, 1963. The game was played on January 13, 1963, three months before the name change. I undid your edit to that fact.

If you can't provide a link to where this discussion has already taken place at WP:NFL, then I'm more than open to starting one up. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Caknuck: You really need to double check it again. I just avoided redirects. It does not matter if you link to "San Diego Chargers" or " History of the San Diego Chargers", because both links will lead to same place. I will repeat again that not all former teams have articles – for example, St. Louis Rams, Houston Oilers or Baltimore Colts have their own pages, while Boston Patriots or Boston Redskins link to current teams' pages. That was always the practice and I am applying the long-standing practice on sports' pages in Wikipedia. You can start a discussion, because I am not going to bother with that, and because that is your duty per WP:BRD. As for Christy's case, I did not take a good look at "Franchise(s) represented" column and thought that it was for teams represented during player's career, which in fact applies to team or teams represented in Pro Bowl games. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll get the discussion launched in the next day or so. I'll ping you and Chris, but whether or not you jump into the discussion is completely up to you. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns or questions. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 18:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

(@Sabbatino:)Hello, I left citation a on the Mike Babcock page and used wikipedia cite webpage as a reference for my citations. You fixed it, which is fine, but I checked the wikipedia cite web page and I believe that my citations were not wrong. May I ask why you put the authors first when the reference page says it should not be first? I am new and you've made a lot more edits than me so I am probably just missing something. I just want to be helpful to the wiki community. Here is the page, by the way:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Template:Cite_web

@70.29.103.142: I am using Wikipedia's "Cite tool", which can be found at the top of editing page. Most of those documentations are outdated and show different format than "Cite tool". The main problem is that you are placing citations incorrectly. You do not have to add a space after a full stop (. symbol), which you tend to do. It should be "Mike Babcock is a coach.<ref>" instead of "Mike Babcock is a coach. <ref>". Read WP:CITEFOOT and that whole guideline to understand that better. Furthermore, you do not have to add a space between "<ref>" and "{{cite...". It should be "<ref>{{cite..." instead of "<ref> {{cite...". Feel free to ask if you have more questions. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(@Sabbatino:)Thank you!

Thanks for creating Vinni Lettieri, Sabbatino!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time creating this page.

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)