Jump to content

Talk:Exposition Park (Pittsburgh)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 04:09, 14 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Pennsylvania}}, {{WikiProject Pittsburgh}}, {{WikiProject Baseball}}, {{WikiProject University of Pittsburgh}}, {{WikiProject College football}}, {{WikiProject Architecture}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: auto.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Removal of succession box for Pitt Panthers

[edit]

Succession boxes exists for all tenants. One editor insists that only the Pitt Panther succession box should be removed because it falls under the authority of the College Football Wikiproject. No authority exists for any one Wikiproject nor does such a policy exist across Wikipedia. Removing the box leaves the Events and Tenants listing incomplete. Please leave your commentary about whether it is appropriate to remove the Pitt Panthers or other succession boxes for this article. CrazyPaco (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: If the tenant in question has notability, which a Division I (or the era's equivalent of) college football program does, the succession box should remain. Kithira (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has tried it again, without consensus.CrazyPaco (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Succession boxes Without hearing from this editor directly my assumption of good faith is being tested with this borderline and repetitive "delete" vandalism, especially when to me the essence of Wikipedia is to be a cited fact based encyclopedia of knowledge . . . in that specific sense the worst possible thing to befall us all is deletion of cited facts down the proverbial memory hole. Thanks to CP for alerting me to these and doing his best to retain this data, at this moment I will believe that this editor does have some misguided though reasoned explanation, but even with a reason, consensus should be gained and at least attempted before systemic deletions of facts. Its my sincere hope that any widespread deletions are discussed on talk pages long long before being used to slice up wikipedia articles. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 17:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]