User talk:Larry Hockett

User

Talk

Contribs

Promoted

Gallery

Aurelio Lopez

Hi. You recently reverted an edit I made to the Aurelio Lopez page. I am an outsider here (reader, not a a regular editor) so I want to be respectful of the rules and ettiquite. So, I thought I'd ask how I might adjust my edit to make to conform to the standards that moderators uphold. The edit was to add to the Legacy section noting that there is a hamburger at a restaurant in Flagstaff, AZ named after Lopez. I made the edit because Senor Smoke was my favorite baseball player and my dear friend, the restaurant owner, named the burger after him. I understand that this is NOT critical information.  ;-). But I intentionally phrased it in such a way that was factual and didn't seem promotional. I'm smart enough to know that a Wikipedia mention is not going to sell any burgers, nor should it. However, there is a statement in the Legacy section that states that a little known rock band named an album after him (Senor Smoke). That item wasn't removed for being an ad to sell records. How is mentioning the hamburger more promotional? both are commercial goods. The hamburger is at least culturally relevant, as it has been for sale at a highly successful restaurant for more than a decade and tens of thousands of people have ordered one.

Anyway, my point is not to complain, but instead to ask advice on how I might phrase and submit the entry such that it meets the community standards and doesn't get reverted.

Thanks in advance. Daydreamnationalist (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I know this is not what you're going to want to hear, but the edit was removed precisely because rephrasing wouldn't help. It's a very trivial detail in the context of the player's life. If the person who created the burger is your good friend, that makes it even less appropriate, not more.

This will make it so easy to understand: Imagine popping open a paper encyclopedia and navigating to his entry. You and I would both be shocked, I'm sure, to discover information about a burger in Flagstaff. It sounds like we share a longtime love of Senor Smoke though! Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Not to worry. I respect the platform and those who build and uphold its standards. In case you're willing to hear an outsider's perspective, here's mine:

Your comment "Imagine popping open a paper encyclopedia and navigating to his entry. You and I would both be shocked, I'm sure, to discover information about a burger in Flagstaff" is a perfect reason why this sort of benign cultural reference SHOULD be allowed. Of course it is trivial information, but to reject it implies that one can draw a bright line between what's important enough to be mentioned and what isn't. I know this isn't what you're going to want to hear but Wikipedia and its moderators cannot and have not met that standard. Frankly, if I were to pop open a paper encyclopedia to read about my favorite player, I'd be shocked to discover the mention of an irrelevant Detroit rock band which named an album after him. Maybe that's more appropriate to have on Wikipedia, since there's an accepted standard of bands and individual albums having dedicated pages (whereas burgers don't) but the two are similarly inconsequential as they relate to Aurelio Lopez. No reason to allow the rock band mention on this page just because it links to an entry (for the album) which itself is clearly allowable and relevant.

Anyway, just food for thought from a reader. Thanks for the work you're doing. Daydreamnationalist (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

BTW, as I presume you know, countless Wikipedia entries were created by people who have personal interests (friendships, etc.) related to the content. The only difference here is that I admitted it. Daydreamnationalist (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're curious about how we look at the admittedly tough task of who/what to include in the encyclopedia, it is usually based on the coverage the item receives in independent, reliable sources. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are a ton of spammers out there; the work will never be finished. But no, admitting it isn't the only difference between you and most of them - thank goodness. I appreciate your commitment to being upfront. Larry Hockett (Talk) 23:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thx. No need to keep replying to me. At this point I'm only asking for my own interest. I get the standards you're trying to apply and just read the "Good Article Criteria." My question is more about linkages than inclusion. Let's accept the following premise as true:

a) Senor Smoke (the album) is a good article and properly included in the encyclopedia.

b) Senor Smoke (the burger) does not meet the standard of importance and coverage to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Despite the above, what standard does Senor Smoke (the album) need to meet in order to be referenced on the page of Aurelio Lopez (aka Senor Smoke) the baseball player? I get why the album gets its own page. I get why the burger doesn't. I don't get why the album gets to be referred to on the baseball player's page any more than the burger which doesn't have its own page. I guess a simpler way of asking my question is, don't you guys apply similar standards of relevance to the importance of the connection? I just Googled "Senor Smoke Album" and clicked through all of the links on the first few pages. Not one of them mentioned the connection to Aurelio Lopez in any way, so regardless of whether the album is deserving of an entry--the mention of it on the Aurelio Lopez page is functionally spam.

Tough calls, I get that. A fun logic wormhole and subculture (Wikipedia moderation) to have fallen into on a Sunday afternoon. Go Tigers! Daydreamnationalist (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Finally, let me note the cruel irony inherent in the fact that that independent reliable sources are nearly unanimous in their opinion that as a rock album, Senor Smoke, is practically unlistenable, whereas, as a burger, it is plump, delicious and lovable--just like its namesake. ;-) Thanks for your time and patience! Daydreamnationalist (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

My edits

Hello Larry, can you please explain why you are reverting my edits? All the best, Mifflefunt 22:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I explained on your user talk page. Cheers. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I see that you said something about personal attacks but I don’t see how anything I said was a personal attack. Mifflefunt 22:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I respect your intelligence enough to assume that you'll be able to work it out given some time to reflect. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Buster Posey

Buster Posey has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)