| Revision as of 07:19, 26 January 2010 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,832 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Zeng8r/Archives/2009/October. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:20, 27 January 2010 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,379,832 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Zeng8r/Archives/2009/October. (BOT)Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Logo == | |||
| This logo is used excessively. On the individuel team articles like ] you could make an argument to have the logo, although I would disagree, nonetheless I haven't removed it from there. On ] it passes for sure. But the usage of the logo on the individual year articles fails ]. ] ] 00:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :As I asked on your talk page, is there any new consensus about this? Over the past couple of years, I've read through several ridiculously long arguments on this very issue (e.g. using team logos on multiple season articles) but have never actually seen a consensus reached. As such, it's inappropriate to engage in wholesale independent removal of these images, imo. ] (]) 00:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::What's to discuss about it, it is kind of obvious. You know, the ] encylopedia and all. Btw, edit summary is interesting since you already reverted five of my edits. ] ] 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::"What's to discuss"? I dunno, maybe the actual wikipedia policy on this issue? As for that edit summary, I was reverting the articles back to their long-time status quo while asking for some rationale to your edits. All you've expressed so far is ], which doesn't really amount to anything except your personal opinion. If you browse through the relevant conversations, you'll find that your opinion is not exactly the clear consensus. I'll dig deeper tomorrow. In the meantime, let me say that your dismissive attitude isn't very conducive to constructive conversation. ] (]) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Please use a non-copyrighted logo (]) instead of the non-free ], per ]. Thanks — ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the alternative. It's not the best solution, tho, since that isn't actually the official logo for the team. ] (]) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::As I thought, while there are some strong opinions on the logo issue, there is no consensus, so the de facto policy is to leave things be. Replacing the official logo with the "Gators" script is not a very good solution, imo, since the actual logo of the team should be in that spot. I don't think it's worth arguing over, tho, so whatever. ] (]) 17:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI: GA for Tampa, FL == | == FYI: GA for Tampa, FL == | ||
Revision as of 18:20, 27 January 2010
FYI: GA for Tampa, FL
Hi,
LALaker13 nominated Tampa, Florida for GA a while back. I just did a preliminary review with some requests for fixes. I noticed LALaker13 hasn't been editing for a couple of weeks. Since the GA nom can't be held open indefinitely I looked and saw you have contributed to the article recently. If you have an interest in helping to resolve the GA issues please feel free.
Thanks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up. I wish I could help. During the school year, my edits are mostly confined to cleaning up vandalism and updating time-sensitive info. Your comments on the GA review were spot on, imo, but I just don't have time to get involved in the revisions right now. Zeng8r (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)