User talk:GreenLocust

Good job fixing the Milwaukee Brewer vandalism.

expos/nationals debate

There is a major debate going on, and I wondered if you might want to chime in. The debate involves how to deal with franchise moves in baseball. The question is whether Montréal Expos should be its own article or if it should redirect to Washington Nationals. All other instances of franchise moves in MLB redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the history of the franchise is covered within the new team name (for MLB, NBA and NFL examples, see here. Some people are confused and think the Expos and the Nats are different teams. Some people don't want to upset Canadian readers.

Indeed, the Washington Nationals are not a new team - the Montreal Expos franchise has moved to Washington, and the old franchise name should redirect to the new franchise name, just like the 20+ instances of this occuring in Wikipedia. For example, Brooklyn Dodger history resides in the Los Angeles Dodgers article. New York Giants history, including the Shot Heard 'Round the World, resides in the San Francisco Giants article.

If you have the time, maybe you could chime in on the conversation there, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Montréal Expos. Kingturtle 21:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RADIUS spam

You've been doing a good job on the RADIUS spam; that last one looked legit 'tho. Well, at least not commercial spam (which is why I left it). Did you follow the link through? Josh Parris ✉ 07:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Brewers

Thanks for finding that Memorial Stadium error. Palmer also threw one there in 69. In the correction I inadvertently thanked you as GreenLantern -- sorry about that. pickle 02:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Date delinking

Although the linking of dates is now depreciated, no one is actually allowed to go around in a campaign to de-link existing instances, as it appears you have been doing. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of information because it is in the infobox

The information in the infobox is sometimes duplicative of what is in the body of the article. It serves as a summary of highlights. I noticed that you have begun to delete the birthplaces of various ballplayers because they are reflected in the infoboxes. Well, so is their name. And so is their team (or teams). And so is their date of birth. And yet I don't so you deleting those from the text of the article -- though you logic would lead to that. I believe that you should follow the logic that is apparent from the infoboxes -- they are a summary of most pertinent facts, and inclusion of info in them should not lead to your stripping that info from the article. If you want to do that, I suggest you bring your suggestion to the baseball discussion page. In the meantime, please re-insert that info into the articles. If you wish to put it in the second para, that is fine with me, but it deserves to be in the article just as the date of birth (which you have not touched) deserves to be in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- will you be addressing this, or should I? Thank you.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what needs to be addressed. First of all, I don't know where you get that I'm deleting the birthplace in the opening because it's in the infobox. As I stated and helpfully linked to in my editing comments, the MOS clearly states that the birthplace is not to be included in the opening alongside the birthdate (see here and here). That's why I'm deleting it, as to conform with the stated policy. This seems to be a stylistic affliction that is primarily limited to athletes, but there is no special MOS for athlete biographies; the Biography MOS covers everybody. When the information is already present in the rest of the article (usually in the infobox), I go ahead and delete it since no information is thus being removed from the article. In those cases where no infobox is present, and the deletion would actually result in the removal of information from the article, I leave the birthplace alone. Despite what you seem to be implying, the infobox is, in fact, part of the article. It is there to summarize and supplement information in the main body. There is a lot of information that is typically included in infoboxes that is not present in the rest of the article, such as uniform number, throwing hand, career stats, etc., so your implication that the infobox contains only information that is included in the rest of the article is simply false. If someone wants to take the birthplace information from the infobox and use it in an "Early Life" section for biographies that don't already have one, they are free to do so, since that is where the birthplace would normally go (in addition to the infobox). After my deletions, the information is still there in the article for everyone to see. One place it definitely does not belong is next to the birthdate in the opening.