New comments, questions and concerns go on the bottom of this page. Please use the "New section" tab above if you have a new topic! If you post here I will respond here; other interested parties may want to follow the conversation, and it's rude to force them to jump back and forth. Similarly, if I post to your talk page, please respond there. Don't bother with talkback templates, I watchlist all pages as needed.
Archives: 2004–2009, 2010, January–June 2011, July–December 2011, January–June 2012, July–December 2012, January–June 2013, July–December 2013, January–June 2014, July–December 2014, January–June 2015, July–December 2015, January–June 2016, July–December 2016,
January–June 2017, July–December 2017, January–June 2018, June–December 2018, January–June 2019, July–December 2019, January–June 2020, July–December 2020, January–June 2021, July–December 2021, January–June 2022
Hello. Since the IP edits the Impact wrestling titles a lot, I have two questions. One is for the promotion. As you know, we include a green section if the title changes brand or promotion. However, Global Force Wrestling, as far as I know, never controlled the title. The merge never was completed, so I think there is no reason to include green sections for TNA/Impact and GFW.
Second, the bold words. Usually we include bold for present. (name of the title in bold, means it's the current name. Name of the wrestler, means it's the name he uses). However, I have read MOS:BOLD but I found nothing about bold text means current. Do you think we should take it to the project talk page and change hundreds of articles? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the former, it's all one promotion, though they did attempt to change their name to GFW, it's still the same promotion, so no need to do anything if that sort.
- For the bold, it's actually common across sports articles to use boldface to indicate the current item on a list. It's not mentioned in MOS:BOLD, but that isn't comprehensive, so nothing needs to change.
- Regardless, nothing those IPs do matters and all of it should be reverted on sight, because it's Jdhfox, who is effectively banned, evading his block. Per SP:DENY, don't even bother with giving him any satisfaction. Just revert and report the IPs to WP:AIV. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you don't mind, I'm gonna remove current names from the infobox. I mean, the parameter is past names, no reason to include the current name. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to go tit-for-tat on the article, but I would like to address a comment you made.
Everything in wrestling - in one way or another - is "in universe", so complaining about wrestling topics being too "in universe" is like complaining that the sky is too blue.
Vjmlhds 18:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Yankees and 1901-02 Orioles
Hi Oknazevad, hope you are well. I just wanted to let you know I added a hidden text message to New York Yankees regarding the 1901-02 Baltimore Orioles. It seems like every reliable source is in agreement that the Orioles team is its separate team. -- LuK3 (Talk) 17:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. I tweaked the grammar a bit and posted the Yankees last to really emphasize the point. It is a notable change from the conventional wisdom, but it was a significant correction when it was announced a few years back. It was time for us to catch up. The question is whether the 1901–02 Orioles should have their own article, being it's currently a redirect to the Yankees. oknazevad (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are definitely enough reliable sources for a 1901-1902 Orioles article, perhaps I'll put it on my to-do list. Thanks again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would be cool. Let me know and I'll take a look at it. oknazevad (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Link via redirect in hatnote
I notice you made this edit saying "Don't use redirect in hatnote s".
I'm wondering if this based on formal policy or consensus I've missed or just a personal preference of your own, and whether it applies specifically to hatnotes?
It's definitely the case that linking via redirect is *preferable* under some circumstances, and while that doesn't necessarily apply here- this case is definitely more marginal- I'm not aware that there's anything against it either...?
All the best, Ubcule (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- First item in WP:HATNOTERULES. In body text a redirect is fine, but in a hatnote, especially one meant to make sure people are arriving at the correct article because of potential redirect confusion, using the actual title is preferable. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fair point. Ubcule (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Trying to avoid an edit war
Heya - I’m Chausettes. You have twice removed an edit I’ve made on the American Bully article. Perhaps you could enter into the talk on the page? It would be good to have a more detailed discussion as I’m not sure your justifications are that clear cut. Thanks :) Chausettes (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- My justification is that no other dog breed article contains a laundry list of barely notable dog-bites-person news articles that have no long term notability. WP:NOTNEWS applies. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
1914 & 1915 MLB seasons
I'm not even going to bother reverting you at 1914 Major League Baseball season & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages. Not because I agree with you, but because I'm tired of the inconsistency being pushed there, even though both the American League & the National League 'opposed' the Federal League at the time. Just no longer interested in trying to bring accuracy to Wikipedia & fighting against revisionism. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not "inconsistency" to include officially recognized records. The inaccuracy is in omitting them. oknazevad (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's revisionism & nothing more. But, as I said at WP:BASEBALL. You're the boss, so I'm not going to bother reverting. PS - They certainly won't be the only pages misleading, on this project. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
"Reads too much like an essay or magazine article"
You said something similar in May when I first posted the article. You also called it "choppily", which is nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about. The article is well-organized and contains no personal opinions/arguments. Just the facts. A good description of private label was sorely lacking on Wikipedia, and I'm glad to have added it. I worked very hard on the content. For you to just brush it off like that... I find it difficult to take. - Manifestation (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- It reads like a magazine article. I think the material you added is good material, but could use a once over to make it less casual in tone. oknazevad (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Have you ever read a magazine article? Like this or this?
Look, I admit that I did take a slight amount of liberty in the definition of private label. Many sources imply or literally state that private label involves outsourcing. This is not true, as evidenced by this article. It's a profile of a vice-president of Kroger, no less, who explains that part of their private-label store brands are made by factories *owned by them*. I also read the 1982 book Private Label, which can be read online for free. Page 10 reads: "The label owner may manufacture his own private label products or have them manufactured and packaged to certain specifications by outside sources, including imports". This made me suspect that outsourcing of private labels used to be less common.
The ambiguity of the definition had probably put the Private label article in a deadlock, preventing its growth. How can you write about private label if you don't know what it is? My main goal was to get the definition clear. For this reason, I also successfully untied private label and generic brand. Nowadays, these two terms are often used interchangeably, but as I made clear in the article, this wasn't always the case.
Keep the ((essay)) template in if you must. But to me, it is hurtful. I worked on this for weeks, almost every day when I got home from work. It took you a lot less time to dismiss it. - Manifestation (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have split generic brand off at all. It's simply another name for store brand. And store brand was already merged into private label following a consensus merge discussion. I think they should be tagged for merger to see what others think. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Did you read the content I posted? Generic brands and store brands are NOT the same! People use the terms incorrectly. If you want to see what generic products look like, google it, or watch this scene from Repo Man (1984). - Manifestation (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then remove the store brands like Great Value from the see also section. Because if there is a distinction, those are not generic, they're store-specific private label brands. Either a brand is available across many wholly separate retailers, in which case it is a name brand (albeit maybe a lesser known brand), or it's only a available through a single retailer or a set of retailers that all share common ownership, in which case it's a private label brand. That is the only distinction with any substance. Having a stripped-down, no-frills packaging is meaningless, and doesn't change the substance of the important distinction of availability. oknazevad (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Again, did you read the content I posted? Four reliable sources I cited clearly distinguish between *three* types of brands: national, private/store, and generic.
Throughout my research, I could not discover who are behind generic brands; retailers, manufacturers, or both? Generic products are a thing of the past I guess, so very little came up. But I *did* found that, nowadays, store-brand products are sometimes called generic products. Strictly seen, this is false. I found two old studies, which I both cited. One study cited a 1979 WSJ article titled "Generic Products Are Winning Noticeable Shares of Market From National Brands, Private Labels". I cited this as extra evidence. I wrote a single paragraph to clarify the difference between store brands and generic brands. It begins with: "Generic brands are often associated with store brands.". This was the most neutral, objective description I could think of.
Then remove the store brands like Great Value from the see also section. What the hell does that mean? - Manifestation (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- It means you listed private labor store brands in the see also section of the generic brands articles as examples, which is incorrect even if the article that is as old as I am is accepted as defining. It tells me you don't really understand the claimed distinction you are making. Malt-O-Meal is probably more in line with the intended definition, for example, but that's still a nationally available brand name, albeit not heavily advertised. oknazevad (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Oooh, you mean this. I did not add those links! I have in fact never edited the Generic brand article. You were right about deleting them, since they are private labels. - Manifestation (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: It's been 8 days now. Apparently, you had no more words to write? Again, leave the ((essay)) template in if you must. But I'm pretty sure you got the wrong end of the stick. Have a nice day, Manifestation (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- I have nothing additional to add. I still think it needs a once over for tone, but that's about it. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Then you should change the tag to ((tone)). - Manifestation (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, that I can agree with. oknazevad (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Negro Leagues as major
Now that the Federal League question appears to be settled, should the particular Negro Leagues recognized as "major" by MLB and sites like baseballreference also appear on the yearly season pages? Seems like the Federal League precedent would apply, but when it was discussed on the Talk page, it was basically a 1-1 stalemate. Jhn31 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- I say we take a wait-and-see approach, just because the integration of the records is still ongoing.
- This in contrast to the Federal League, which has been formally recognized since 1968 and the recognition of which based on the original settlement between the FL and the AL/NL back in 1915, the one that saw the Chicago Whales merge with the Cubs under the ownership of Whales owner Charles Weeghman (for which we still have the Friendly Confines), the Pittsburgh Rebels to merge with the Pirates, and the St Louis Terriers to merge with the Browns. The only thing they didn't really do there was have the remaining teams join the AL & NL as expansion teams, as had happened when the NL absorbed the original American Association (a league which was also formally recognized in 1968, it should be noted). Of course, not doing that is what led to the anti-trust exemption, but that is an off-the-field item, and not relevant to recognition of the FL as a major league.oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ok. Aside from this issue, what are your thoughts on standardizing all of the "____ Major League Baseball season" articles, which have dramatically different sections depending on the year, different formats, etc., and also just go back to 1901 rather than 1876 (1871?). I'd be happy to take the lead on that, but I don't want to step on any toes, and the project Talk page doesn't really get a lot of comments to build a consensus.
- My suggestion would be Standings, Postseason, Awards, League Leaders, all in a standardized format, and cut out a lot of the extra stuff that dominates the most recent seasons' articles, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise on most of that. Jhn31 (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not so worried about standardization. While I'd be fine with ensuring that all of the season articles have some common basics covered, the extra stuff is really what we should be adding to older articles instead of removing from recent ones. It's more critical to make them less pure statistical listings. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me honestly. However, the format of the statistical leaders varies from season to season (size, order, stats included), and I feel like that should be the same in all of them. Also, which order all of things appear in the articles is not the same from season to season.
- What are your thoughts on adding "____ Major League Baseball season" articles for 1876 (1871?) through 1899? Jhn31 (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, I think the "18xx in baseball" articles are probably sufficient for now. oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey thanks for showing sources on the Yankees and original American League orioles. I still consider the original orioles part of the franchise. But for me tho. I think the fact you showed by sources by how the team got demolished by McGraw as pretty interesting. I still think that he is one of the reasons why the Yankees exist is mind boggling. Like I said I will consider the orioles team as part of the Yankees. Although I read somewhere it’s apparently disputed. Not sure if it is. Thanks for preserving history. Your a true Wikipedian. A.R.M. 04:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
- Not disputed, just an bit of conventional thinking that was given an official correction a few years ago. Funnily enough, the whole reason anyone looked into it was because wether or nut those two season should be included would determine when the team reached 10,000 franchise regular season wins, the first teams to read h that milestone despite there being franchises that are Howard's of 30 years older. oknazevad (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking last night I could put down some of the articles into the redirect article and just add the references from other pages. It’s gonna take a while cause I’m not sure how the page for the original American League orioles are gonna be shown. I will help in any way to help the partial Yankee history in preserving the history in that team. A.R.M. 12:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your reversal of the removal of content on the CW, Nexstar has publicly stated already via investor calls and presentations that they own the CW and as of August 15, have operational control of The CW. The confusion I think you have on the matter is that while the transaction itself is expected to close in the third quarter of 2022, Nexstar has control now of The CW and operations around it.
I'd suggest reading the official press release here, https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar-media-group-to-acquire-the-cw-network/, and listening to the investor presentation https://www.nexstar.tv/nexstar_cw_acquisition_webcast_2022/ Tazetheog (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- It remains that The CW is not yet 75% owned by Nexstar Media Group; hence your edit is premature. Regardless of what Nexstar says in its media releases, wait until the transaction closes. General Ization Talk 01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I was updating content about PONY Baseball and Softball and I noticed that PONY League redirects there, from a re-target you implemented in May 2021. While contemporary use of "PONY League" would almost certainly be in reference to the youth organization, there are a large number of historical uses of "PONY League" in various MLB season articles that should send users to the New York–Penn League article. See for example what links here, a specific example being 1947 Boston Red Sox season#Farm system. I was thinking we should probably have a specific redirect for the historical minor league, something like [[PONY League (minor league)]] or similar that would target New York–Penn League, which then could be placed in the MLB season articles. Thoughts? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- I could see doing that. Creating [[PONY League (minor league)]] would allow for the use of the pipe trick to create a link that just says "PONY League". On the other hand, just fixing the links to point to the NY-Penn League is probably a better idea. oknazevad (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I looked around a bit further and found that there's already an existing Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League, which redirects to New York–Penn League. I'll update the applicable MLB articles with [[Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League|PONY League]], in the (unlikely) event that the history of the Pennsylvania–Ontario–New York League gets split off from the New York–Penn League at some point. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
- That works for me. I can't imagine the article getting split, being it is the same league with just a name change. oknazevad (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)