User talk:Rockchalk717/Archives/2022/April
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Aaron Rodgers
Not understanding your logic about how "since an NBA Title is the only thing Rodgers can achieve as an owner, it shouldn't be listed".
What difference does it make if it is the only accomplishment he can attain in that particular role?
It is still an accomplishment, which has been verified by numerous sources.
Please stop removing it, as there is no real reason to do so.
Vjmlhds (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Vjmlhds: The reason not to include it is he is one of like 20 minority owners of the team. It's also not standard to include this, see Magic Johnson who has two championships as a minority owner of a professional sports franchise, but it's only mentioned in the prose NOT in a sports accomplishments.--Rockchalk717 19:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not to mention, his stake is so minor, he doesn't have any real say in the day-to-day operations of the franchise, from legal perspective he basically just is a stock holder, so if he has no control over day-to-day operations, how is it his accomplishment?--Rockchalk717 19:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Aaron Rodgers, Bucks championship to get other editors involved.--Rockchalk717 20:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to beat you up or give you a hard time, but when a half dozen major media outlets give Rodgers credit for a ring, it no longer matters if a random Wikipedia editor sees it the same way. You not viewing him as an NBA Champion is quite frankly irrelevant, when multiple references say otherwise. When info is added with numerous reliable sources to back it up, then an editor just can't wipe it out of existence just because he doesn't share the view. Yes there was a discussion, but when I presented all the sources, the discussion ended because it was no longer a matter of opinion. The claim was made, the sources confirmed it, the end. Removing sourced material just because you don't agree with it is something frowned upon in this establishment. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vjmlhds: Yet again you're thinking my issue is verifiability. There was no discussion. I attempted to get a consensus on the NFL project page and nobody responded. Multiple editors reverted your additions of it. Minority owners have literally no say in roster decisions. Their "ownership" is literally nothing more to an investment. I own stock with my employer (I legitimately do) but I don't get a say in any major company decisions. Aaron Rodgers is to the Bucks and his ownership what I am as a stockholder, nothing more, nothing less. I'm ok with it being mentioned in the article, I just take issue with it being included with his football accomplishments and it definitely doesn't belong in the infobox.--Rockchalk717 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The awards and honors section isn't just for football - it lists every notable accolade Rodgers has achieved, period. Nobody ever said it was strictly related to football. Numerous other celebrities/athletes have similar sections in their articles where it lists all the major awards/accolades they attained, and it doesn't just mean in one particular field. BTW it isn't mentioned in the infobox, and that's fine, it doesn't belong there anyway. Awards and honors means just that, in what arena they got them in is irrelevant. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I never said it was just for football either. You're reminding me why I stopped discussing this with you because you keep putting words in my mouth about my arguments against. Another discussion is occurring at Talk:Magic Johnson#Awards and honors. For the ∞th time: Minority owners have EXACTLY ZERO SAY IN ROSTER DECISIONS meaning he literally had nothing to do with the championship, just like Russell Wilson had nothing to do with the Seattle Sounders championship and Magic Johnson had nothing to do with the championships the Lakers won as a minority owner. Just to further prove that is my issue, Magic Johnson has a Grammy listed and I'm ok with that, if Kobe had a similar section I would be ok with listing his Oscar win because in both situations, they both had direct impact that led to those awards. And FYI, two other editors have commented on the discussion on Magic Johnson's talkpage, one person who has commented is an admin the other is an editor with similar experience as mine, and they seem to agree with me. I'm done discussing it here (again). Please take additional comments to Magic's talkpage.--Rockchalk717 23:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- What you are doing is putting your personal criteria into play, which you really shouldn't do, as that is WP:OR. Rogers is credited as an NBA champion, and 6 different sources verify it. That's ballgame. What random Wikipedia editor thinks goes out the window when the references all say different. An awards and honors section just notes all of the accomplishments and achievements one has attained through their life. It doesn't matter how the award was attained, all that matters is they have it in their trophy case, and it can be verified - that's it...no opinion, no debate over how much involvement one has in something, no personal feelings - just cold hard verifiable proof one has gotten something (regardless of how it was gotten). Your issue (like it was before) is the how something got attained. The awards and honors section merely denotes hardware one has accumulated - the means by doing so are irrelevant. And like I said, I have no issue with not including it in infoboxes, but you seem to want to take it to the extreme and try to wipe it off the face of the Earth...that, you can't do, as it's not your (or any Wiki editor's) place to put their own spin on things. X is credited with an award, here's the proof verifying it, game over. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I never said it was just for football either. You're reminding me why I stopped discussing this with you because you keep putting words in my mouth about my arguments against. Another discussion is occurring at Talk:Magic Johnson#Awards and honors. For the ∞th time: Minority owners have EXACTLY ZERO SAY IN ROSTER DECISIONS meaning he literally had nothing to do with the championship, just like Russell Wilson had nothing to do with the Seattle Sounders championship and Magic Johnson had nothing to do with the championships the Lakers won as a minority owner. Just to further prove that is my issue, Magic Johnson has a Grammy listed and I'm ok with that, if Kobe had a similar section I would be ok with listing his Oscar win because in both situations, they both had direct impact that led to those awards. And FYI, two other editors have commented on the discussion on Magic Johnson's talkpage, one person who has commented is an admin the other is an editor with similar experience as mine, and they seem to agree with me. I'm done discussing it here (again). Please take additional comments to Magic's talkpage.--Rockchalk717 23:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- The awards and honors section isn't just for football - it lists every notable accolade Rodgers has achieved, period. Nobody ever said it was strictly related to football. Numerous other celebrities/athletes have similar sections in their articles where it lists all the major awards/accolades they attained, and it doesn't just mean in one particular field. BTW it isn't mentioned in the infobox, and that's fine, it doesn't belong there anyway. Awards and honors means just that, in what arena they got them in is irrelevant. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Vjmlhds: Yet again you're thinking my issue is verifiability. There was no discussion. I attempted to get a consensus on the NFL project page and nobody responded. Multiple editors reverted your additions of it. Minority owners have literally no say in roster decisions. Their "ownership" is literally nothing more to an investment. I own stock with my employer (I legitimately do) but I don't get a say in any major company decisions. Aaron Rodgers is to the Bucks and his ownership what I am as a stockholder, nothing more, nothing less. I'm ok with it being mentioned in the article, I just take issue with it being included with his football accomplishments and it definitely doesn't belong in the infobox.--Rockchalk717 18:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to beat you up or give you a hard time, but when a half dozen major media outlets give Rodgers credit for a ring, it no longer matters if a random Wikipedia editor sees it the same way. You not viewing him as an NBA Champion is quite frankly irrelevant, when multiple references say otherwise. When info is added with numerous reliable sources to back it up, then an editor just can't wipe it out of existence just because he doesn't share the view. Yes there was a discussion, but when I presented all the sources, the discussion ended because it was no longer a matter of opinion. The claim was made, the sources confirmed it, the end. Removing sourced material just because you don't agree with it is something frowned upon in this establishment. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Aaron Rodgers cleanup
Great work on tidying up the article! I am working on condensing statlines as I come across them. Red Director (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Red Director: Thank you! Always great to get positive feedback! I'm starting to notice a lot of quarterbacks specifically have a lot of random off the wall records listed that aren't that notable, so I'm not necessarily gonna seek it out as like a personal project on here, but it is something I'll look for when I access a quarterback's article.--Rockchalk717 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
I see you adding return specialist to Pooka finally
Mmmmmmmmmmmhhm McDoub1e (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- @McDoub1e: When you did that previously he had returned a single kick in the preseason. He got his first NFL action and only played kick returner so it made sense to add it. If he starts only playing his main position, like Tyreek Hill did for example, I will remove it again.--Rockchalk717 03:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Cleveland Heights High School
Just so we're clear: I'm not calling for any deletions (although that section's been tagged for over a year, so maybe it's time). I'm saying let's at least not make an existing problem even worse. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Allen was listed as an outside linebacker when he played for the Bears, as he played as the edge rusher in their 3-4 system. – PeeJay 02:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @PeeJay: The Bears used a 4-3 in 2014 per this (notice 4 starting defensive linemen and 3 starting linebackers) but per that same link he was the starting right defensive end in 2014. It does appear his 3 games with the Bears in 2015 he started at outside linebacker, but 3 of 187 career games at linebacker hardly justifies inclusion of it.--Rockchalk717 03:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Tyreek Hill
Hey no problem about the Florida/Georgia thing. I've just recently created Category:Sportspeople from Broward County, Florida and I've been going through Category:People from Broward County, Florida and it's various sub-cats and adding people to the "Sportspeople" category. I got to Tyreek because he's got Category:People from Lauderhill, Florida. If there's no connection to Lauderhill, you may wanna go ahead and remove that category while you're at it. American Money (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC) @American Money: I did not notice that category. I will remove it. Thank you.--Rockchalk717 16:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Kansas City Chiefs season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Wylie.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
2022 New York Giants season article
I touched up on the 2022 New York Giants season article and the sources. I’m not trying to vandalize or remove content, but improve on the article. AbelAndCain (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @AbelAndCain: I never said you were but you did revert my edit before making the change. There's no need to mention they will have a new head coach or GM because that's implied when you mention Gettleman retired and Judge was fired. When they hire both positions, then you can say "...the first under new head coach _____ and general manager ______." Until then, I do not see the purpose of specifically mentioning they will have a new head coach and GM.--Rockchalk717 23:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright. I’ll leave the article alone until then. AbelAndCain (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Addition of unsourced content
Please stop adding such large sections which are (for the most, if not entirely) unsourced. WP:V is a fundamental requirement, and you must provide sources if it is challenged (which you have failed to do). Second, even if you could probably find sources for most of this, Wikipedia is neither a sports database nor an indiscriminate collection of information (and least of all a fansite). Most of the information about sports trades and the like is mind-boggingly routine information, which very likely is of very little interest (and practically no long-term significance) except to dedicated fans, and such excessive details are also good signs that this is probably WP:RECENTISM as well. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: 1, I've been adding transactions for years to NFL season pages and you are legitimately the first and only person to ever have an issue. 2, It's not a collection of statistics. Providing transactions are a regular part of sports seasons pages in any sport as transactions are actually a major part of the season because they are what shape the roster, in many cases they are unsourced. 3, The overwhelming majority of players have pages with the transactions sourced within those pages. 4, I will be reverting and adding sources tomorrow when I have some time. 5, No, transactions doesn't violate WP:RECENTISM.--Rockchalk717 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- RandomCanadian, transactions have been a routine part of teams season pages for quite a while now. If you want to start a discussion about whether transactions shouldn't be a part of individual team pages, I would go to this page and start that discussion to gain consensus before using your rollback privilege to remove information you don't think should be there, especially only removing from one team's page. Spf121188 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) 1 & 3. So what? I've never been much convinced by appeals to tradition. 2. An encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge, not a mundane listing of every routine event. Sports teams get transactions all of the bloody time. A list of people's name, without any text to accompany it, is functionally the same as what's described at WP:NOTSTATS. It might go on a specialised sports website, or a sports database, but it has absolutely no purpose in an encyclopedia (the same way that, say, listing all productions of an opera might be interesting to some [and actually done on some specialist websites], but most certainly does not go on Wikipedia). 4. As I said, sources are only half the issue here. 5. Yes, they do. Is the whole of the "cut to 85", "cut to 80", "players signed and released in the offseason"... something that will truly appear relevant, to people who are not intimately passionate with the subject, in ten years' time? I very much doubt so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Spf121188: I'd never have thought that something so fundamentally at odds with existing policies would be an all pages like this (hell, even actual football clubs, ex. 2021–22 Manchester United F.C. season, don't include such verbose and overdetailed tables like this, keeping it bare minimum, and, most importantly, very much well sourced). Then again, considering how much some people have difficulty accepting that sports articles need to follow the guidelines just as much as every other article (in other contexts), I should have doubted it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: What policies do transactions violate? None. Not to mention you keep changing what policy you think it violates. I'll concede they weren't sourced which is why I've committed to sourcing it, but I'll need you to back off the page for a few days because it's going to take time. You're so freaking focused on the transactions because you think they're a collection of "sports statistics" when literally every 2021 NFL team page provides team statistics for the season. And you wanna bring up guidelines? There's literally a guideline that says if it helps you improve Wikipedia, ignore the rules. Don't get caught up in needing to following every single policy to the letter, especially since some rules are contradictory of each other. Another editor had already reverted your edit on the page. If you wanna change the standard of inclusion of transactions, start a discussion on each sport's league's project page, otherwise, there's nothing more to discuss here. Don't get WP:POINTY.--Rockchalk717 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've pointed you to WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTNEWS. Both of these apply, in that transactions are basically unannotated and excessive statistics (especially when they go to such an unencyclopedic amount of detail as here); and that transactions are mostly routine events (they happen all the time, the vast majority of them hold little long-term impact, and it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to chronicle routine every day events). The fact is, there is a lot of coverage about sports in online sources, but that does not mean that all of this goes in an encyclopedia, which is a summary of information, not an indiscriminate collection of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Not stats doesn't apply because they aren't statistics and again these pages include actual statistics that you haven't said a word about. Second, not news doesn't apply because it's not original reporting, it's not breaking news reports (transactions are only added when confirmed by the team to when they appear on the transaction wire), it isn't a who's who, and it isn't celebrity gossip. In fact, in Not News it even says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." What's more up-to-date or current events related to a sports team's season than their transactions? There game's is probably it. So again, you're pointing to policies that don't apply. I'm just going to put it blunt here and end this discussion (don't bother responding because it won't be read) the transactions will stay in the article and I will work on sourcing the content.--Rockchalk717 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Some statistics can be fine, does not mean that too much is ok. I don't understand how you've missed:
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia
. Most routine news reports about sports are not encyclopedic material. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Some statistics can be fine, does not mean that too much is ok. I don't understand how you've missed:
- @RandomCanadian: Not stats doesn't apply because they aren't statistics and again these pages include actual statistics that you haven't said a word about. Second, not news doesn't apply because it's not original reporting, it's not breaking news reports (transactions are only added when confirmed by the team to when they appear on the transaction wire), it isn't a who's who, and it isn't celebrity gossip. In fact, in Not News it even says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." What's more up-to-date or current events related to a sports team's season than their transactions? There game's is probably it. So again, you're pointing to policies that don't apply. I'm just going to put it blunt here and end this discussion (don't bother responding because it won't be read) the transactions will stay in the article and I will work on sourcing the content.--Rockchalk717 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Star-Spangled Banner
I've noticed that the articles for other past Super Bowls, including Super Bowl LV and Super Bowl LIV, do refer to the U.S. national anthem by name. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Statseason
Hello,
I saw that you had reverted an edit of mine on Brandon Knight, adding back the statseason of 2020. Your reason was "This should never be removed until a player retires". Is there anywhere that states this should not be removed until a player retires? I ask not to argue, but to see if this matter has been settled at any point. I look at the NFL infobox and I interpret the "stats as of x" as something to be used in season when stats are being updated week to week. In my opinion it makes more sense to list just "Career NFL statistics" instead of "Career NFL statistics as of 2021". It looks cleaner and "Career NFL statistics" implies that it would contain everything up to and including the most recent year. Again, that's just my opinion and interpretation so I wanted to hear yours on this. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: It's very existence is the evidence. That parameter only exists to inform people of what the stats are updated through. Once a player's career is over, there's nothing more to update. It also is indirectly stated in the parameter description at Template:Infobox NFL biography "used in the heading for the statistics section to describe how current the statistics are. Only to be used for active NFL players, where statistics are subject to future change. Do not wikilink entries in this field." While that may be your opinion, parameter requirements are based on what is typically long-standing consensus. Not including the as of also can confuse editors because it's not clear when the stats where last updated. Some players go an entire season or two without their stats updated. An editor shouldn't have to look up the stats to determine if it's updated like I had to on his page.--Rockchalk717 19:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just want to be clear that I was explaining my point of view and not trying to argue for it, more seeking clarification since I see you as experienced enough to know better than I do. I understand opinions are subjective and are just that, opinions. Thank you for the insight, you've definitely helped me understand your stance on this. While I may not wholly agree with leaving the statseason I don't have a better suggestion or solution because, as you said, it brings into question when the stats were last updated. I'll stop removing statseason from players that are not yet retired. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, also, I like your user page but I noticed a couple things;
- Under your concerts section you have a disambigulous link to Daughtry instead of Daughtry (band).
- Under Edit Count you have a broken link to your 30,000th edit. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh: Oh I know you weren't trying to argue and I apologize if it came across that way. I didn't know that about those links on my user page either. I'll get those fixed.--Rockchalk717 20:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just want to be clear that I was explaining my point of view and not trying to argue for it, more seeking clarification since I see you as experienced enough to know better than I do. I understand opinions are subjective and are just that, opinions. Thank you for the insight, you've definitely helped me understand your stance on this. While I may not wholly agree with leaving the statseason I don't have a better suggestion or solution because, as you said, it brings into question when the stats were last updated. I'll stop removing statseason from players that are not yet retired. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Player articles.
Don't worry I'll take care of updating the Chiefs player articles figured how much time you spend watching the Chiefs roster box and correcting other users you could do the bare minimum of at least updating. No worries don't want to ask for too much. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 18:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingryan227: Don't confuse prioritizing certain things with not having time as you just implied. Changing UFA player articles to free agent is a low priority for most experienced NFL Project editors because, quite frankly, it's not the important. The higher priority is ensuring player articles and roster templates are not prematurely edited before transactions are officially announced as you've tried to. So don't try criticize me for prioritizing edits.--Rockchalk717 18:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since when is updating player articles not of top priority? You can make sure that thing's aren't updated prematurely but you can't update articles yourself? The navbox you reverted on me earlier you could do but then was too much work to fix the player article? What I'm criticizing is that your priorities are prioritizing edits that aren't that important. Even you know that most people who search for something on Wikipedia search for the player more than the roster pages. Also the deletion of that section on my talk page was over the baseball editor that I've never heard of warning over a misunderstanding. Had no issue with the rosterbox warning jumped the gun to make sure that the edit was done as most rosterboxes seem to struggle to get updated. I do appreciate the work you do with the Chiefs rosterboxes but figured if you could correct me on that then the player pages would at least have been updated as well. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 19:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingryan227: Please do not take my words out of context. I didn't say updating playing articles was always a low priority. Just that changing players with expiring contracts to free agent, while an accurate edit once the new league year officially begins, it isn't that important the first week or two of free agency because the majority of big name players will be either resigned or sign with a new team in that time frame. I also was saying that premature edits are a huge problem on Wikipedia because so many editors don't understand or even know the official announcement policy and stopping and reverting those edits are my main focus early in free agency. So please do not criticize what I prioritize just because it doesn't match your priorities, and I don't mean that in a combative or disrespectful way either.--Rockchalk717 20:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since when is updating player articles not of top priority? You can make sure that thing's aren't updated prematurely but you can't update articles yourself? The navbox you reverted on me earlier you could do but then was too much work to fix the player article? What I'm criticizing is that your priorities are prioritizing edits that aren't that important. Even you know that most people who search for something on Wikipedia search for the player more than the roster pages. Also the deletion of that section on my talk page was over the baseball editor that I've never heard of warning over a misunderstanding. Had no issue with the rosterbox warning jumped the gun to make sure that the edit was done as most rosterboxes seem to struggle to get updated. I do appreciate the work you do with the Chiefs rosterboxes but figured if you could correct me on that then the player pages would at least have been updated as well. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 19:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI if you're interested
Thanks again for finding the copyvio. Just an FYI if you want the script that can tag revisions for revdel. Add this to your .js page:
{{subst:iusc|User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js}}
It's pretty user friendly. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Having multiple of the same parameter in a template doesn't work. There can only be one of each. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @IAmChaos: I just realized what the issue was. I messed up in my previous edit. The second instance of the "seed=" parameter should have been "oppseed=". I have fixed this.--Rockchalk717 05:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
Hi. 2600:100B:B125:D8B7:652C:A0FE:C449:7F70 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
GO KANSAS
We're coming for you UNC! CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 20:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Update: YES Kansas won! ;) CertifiedAmazing2 wanna chat? 03:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Colby Covington
Greetings. You've twice removed my IPA/respell addition to the article, in the space of two years. Could you please explain why? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mac Dreamstate: I already have in both of my edit summaries for my edits about it. Your explanation for inclusion didn't make much sense either because you're concerned about a pronunciation of his name that doesn't exist.--Rockchalk717 15:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- But I'll repeat my main reason. Pronunciations should be left to people with names difficult to pronounce or names not pronounced like they're spelled. Adding a pronunciation because somebody might think it's pronounced another way is just flat unnecessary.--Rockchalk717 15:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I won't lose sleep over it. But I will say in closing, you may be looking at this from a U.S.-centric POV. Just because the pronunciation is obvious to you, or Americans, doesn't mean that is the case across the English-speaking world. In all my life I'd never seen the name Covington before, and for a while during a time when I had limited access to video, I wasn't able to verify how it is pronounced; in fact, I thought without question it must be "Coe-vington". My addition to the article therefore wasn't some vanity project to please myself—it was about providing a helpful tip to readers unfamiliar with him or the UFC. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mac Dreamstate: I get your point completely but I'm not sure if you're fully seeing my point. His name is pronounced as it's spelled. I don't see the point in providing a pronunciation for a name pronounced as it's spelled. A name like Joanna Jędrzejczyk or Mike Krzyzewski is a different story.--Rockchalk717 16:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- To say it's pronounced how it's spelt is vague and misguided. If that were the case, we'd pronounce it as "COH-vington" (/ɒ/) or "COE-vington" (/oʊ/), instead of "CUH-vington" (/ʌ/). Not everyone outside the U.S. can be expected to know either way. English being a notoriously un-phonetic language, "o" has multiple variations, especially across both sides of the Atlantic let alone on each side. We're not talking about foreign-language names like that of Jędrzejczyk or Krzyzewski. This is an English name that has an ambiguous pronunciation depending on regional accent. Observe Vince McMahon or Joe Biden, both of which include an IPA. Same deal—the reader cannot be sure how those "a"s and "i"s are pronounced without one. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Mac Dreamstate: I get your point completely but I'm not sure if you're fully seeing my point. His name is pronounced as it's spelled. I don't see the point in providing a pronunciation for a name pronounced as it's spelled. A name like Joanna Jędrzejczyk or Mike Krzyzewski is a different story.--Rockchalk717 16:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I won't lose sleep over it. But I will say in closing, you may be looking at this from a U.S.-centric POV. Just because the pronunciation is obvious to you, or Americans, doesn't mean that is the case across the English-speaking world. In all my life I'd never seen the name Covington before, and for a while during a time when I had limited access to video, I wasn't able to verify how it is pronounced; in fact, I thought without question it must be "Coe-vington". My addition to the article therefore wasn't some vanity project to please myself—it was about providing a helpful tip to readers unfamiliar with him or the UFC. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)