Jump to content

User talk:Omnis Scientia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Comments by UC

Hi, have you seen Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford/archive1#Comments by UC? I have my own thoughts, but want to let you respond first. I can see that there is quite a lot to respond to. TSventon (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @TSventon. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I didn't know about it. Been a little busy in recent days so haven't been editing all that much.
So the comments by UC are quite long and since its very late - or early, depending on how you look at it - where I am, I'll respond in the morning. So if you want to respond/edit, go ahead. I will pick up from there. I'm free tomorrow as it were so I was thinking of focusing on updating the list anyways. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, what do you think about UC's latest comments? Can you respond in due course? TSventon (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@TSventon, thanks. I didn't check in for some time so I didn't know there were more comments there. Will definitely check them out and get back as soon as I can. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Jane Perceval

Hi, I found Jane Perceval had not been linked to a Wikidata item while experimenting with petscan, so I investigated and linked it with an existing item. TSventon (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Murphy (sportswriter)

I made a slight correction to this article you created. Murphy didn't write for the World Telegram up to his death because the newspaper ceased publication in 1967 and he died in 1970. The NYT obituary only said 'He spent 50 years on The Eagle and went to The New York World‐Telegram and The Sun when The Eagle ceased publication in 1955.'

Also working in a location doesn't automatically make people from there. Sports team player pages for instance are never categorized 'People from Foo'. Please note this[1] notable people criteria.Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the corrections! And I will keep the second part in mind as well, going forward. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of siblings of presidents of the United States (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by OhHaiMark were:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of siblings of presidents of the United States instead.
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at First family of the United States. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
OhHaiMark (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Omnis Scientia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! OhHaiMark (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 at Women in Red

Women in Red | September 2024, Volume 10, Issue 9, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 316, 317


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Jewish American United States Cabinet members has been accepted

List of Jewish American United States Cabinet members, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See also

Nice job on your new volumnious see also .. but please do not replace the existing select list which has served an important purpose for many years, for those select ballplayers. It serves a different purpose - it is smaller, more given to scanning, highlights the more prominent, and has above and below it related lists. Feel free to not delete, but rather add to all the other players not on the select list. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:3DC5:789A:CB50:868 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This list was specifically for Jewish MLB players. That list is for PROMINENT Jewish sportspeople. Mixing the two because you think a list which has people who don't even identify as Jewish is better than a featured list with references for each and a set criteria is not a good way to go about this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I have replaced the select list from MLB players' pages as I had did before because your explanation is weak, at best. This is specifically for Jewish MLB players, gives the necessary highlights, and also the references. Adding this to "see also" is also in line with other lists of Puerto Rican MLB players or Canadian MLB players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Stop it please. Now. You are deleting see alsos that have been in articles for years. Because you have a different personal preference. Yours is simply a cat on steroids. It is unreadable - for the reader who wants to glance at prominent ball players. Because it has dozens of non significant ball players. Use your see also for the 150+ ballplayers not in the long-there list. But stop deleting for personal poor choice preferences the existing are alsos. Which also allow people to easily see other prominent Jewish athletes easily. It is unhelpful. And not collaborative. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B980:7A44:DA5:EC2D (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I did no such thing. I only removed see also from one baseball player who doesn't identify as Jewish.
And you don't have to be so combative. Just warning your right now not to engage in edit-warring because you prefer an unreferenced list with fewer people on it. Nobody else had a problem when these changes were initially implemented so its basically just you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, a featured list with accessibility tools is not "inferior" to what you think is a "stronger" list. I'd argue that the unorganized list you are advocating for is the unreadable one because of the unorganized way its built and being unreferenced - I removed numerous people who weren't Jewish a while back - while the featured list highlights stars, is listed by alphabets, and in sortable tables, and each entry is referenced.
And what I did was in line with how "see also"s in baseball pages are ususally for which is for lists related to baseball. The actual reason that initial list was there in the first place was because this particular one did not exist.
Also what you're doing is not collaborative. I undid your unilaterally decision to not "restore" but remove an MLB featured list in favor of less informative, more confusing preference. You did not consult me or anyone else. You decided for yourself that the featured list is "unreadable" and "inferior" and then came here to tell me I was wrong when I did what was basically routine and something which no other regular editor has an issue with. And I will do it again because you're engaging in disruptive editing and giving no reasons for it other than "this list is better". Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
a) I understand your pride in a see also you worked hard on. Congratulations on that. b) You assert in your revert - without any support - that your new list now "takes precedence" over the long-accepted, longstanding see also. There's simply no such rule. We don't make up rules, and assert them as fact. c) I support you being accurate, and either removing from articles and lists any text that is not supported by RS refs, or if you think it is likely accurate by tagging it and then removing it later if no ref is supplied.
d) Nobody had a problem for many years with the lists that you are willy nilly deleting. Just you have been deleting them. e) The lists are not coterminous for the reasons I already indicated. So it is not a question of which has more refs - though as I pointed out, since you can remove (or tag) any non-supported text, and you say you've already done that or done that largely so you are aware of that, so that's a non-issue. Certainly not reason for removal. f) Your list of 200 or so baseball players, including primarily those with limited appearances from many years ago, does not help much the reader who wants to see who the current and more prominent ballplayers. And who is interested in the related subject of Jewish sportspeople.
g) The actual reason that list was in the see also's was not - as you maintain - that your newly created list did not exist. You are making that up or guessing. The existing see alsos, there for years, are beneficial because of the reasons I stated. Your list is fine - but its basically the existing category on steroids. And does not have the benefits I pointed to. You really think a reader interested in Jewish baseball players who can look at the cat of 200 of them prefers to see your list of 200, rather than see the more prominent and current players, who are buried deep in your list? Why would that be? h) No other regular editor had a problem with the established list. For many, many years. In fact, none seemed to care enough to create the list that you created - while many editors added or culled or revised the other list. i) I have no problem with you adding your see also to other article that don't have the see also in the first place. Probably 150+ I imagine, correct?
j) I do have a problem with you willy nilly taking it upon yourself to delete the see alsos from the much smaller list of prominent and current players.
If you want to be collaborative, please consider the issues I've laid out. Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:45B5:3629:911E:2628 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
a) Its not a "see also", its a list. A "see also" section is not a requirement and can contain anything. b) I didn't make that list so I can "willy nilly delete" the other list which I didn't delete since it still exists, I just replaced it as routine. I made it because I was interested in this list and in what is a very complex topic (also there is no other ethnicity-specific complete list of ballplayers; nationality ones, yes, but no complete comprehensive list like this one).
c) I don't add or make stuff based on who will read about it. Frankly, I don't care if people don't care about the contents of this list; they are free not to read it. I'm sure a lot of people don't care about Jewish pro-wrestlers or whatever else, especially if its deep in a list of 700+ people (and who don't necessarily identify as Jewish but can just be of Jewish descent like Ralph Branca or Lou Boudreau), just as I'm sure there are people interested in Jewish MLB players rather than a category containing a mix of minor leaguers and major leaguers with no other info.
d) Again, I can edit as I please as long as I'm within the rules. I didn't remove the list for the reasons I gave. I gave the reasons above to counter your silly "inferior/superior" falsehoods so don't twist my words. e) Yes actually, given how it was piped/titled as "List of select Jewish MLB players", it was there because there was no alternative. f) You did not point out any "disadvantages" other than "I don't like this list and neither will anyone else"; and current players aren't "buried" they are listed alphabeticaly.
g) No other editor had a problem with that list anymore than they had with this one because there was no alternative -- and the editors in question are the regular baseball project editors, BTW. That list has been edited many times because its existed a lot longer. The featured list isn't even a year old and, thanks to the help I received at "WP:FL (featured lists)", it really can't be improved more other than by adding new players.
h) I will not be adding people with limited appearences to a list of prominent baseball people and I won't be implementing anything you've added given that you haven't actually suggested anything other make a case for why the list you preference is better which, frankly, it isn't in any way shape or form. Also, you've been nothing but rude and patronizing and I won't collaborate with someone like this, especially when they clearly don't know a thing about the topic they are arguing about.
Finally, i) your edits are disruptive and for no reason. Consider this an informal warning before a formal one. I will keep undoing your unneccessary removal of an MLB featured list from the page of a Jewish MLB player in place of a miscellenous, much longer, unorganized list. Now kindly stop harrassing me. Goodbye. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I stand by all I said before. We can bring this to an admin I guess. Or we can try to reach a compromise. Your call. I've been quite clear in my points, and have not as you have engaged in rude or patronizing behavior, nor ad hominum attacks such as you have now made. Your call. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:B5B4:44F9:9229:B399 (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    You don't come to another person's talkpage and then tell them how the list the created is "bad" and and then not expect some pushback and defense from that person. If I was rude at some point, I apologize but I don't think I did anything wrong by highlighting differences of each list and making a case for mine.
    This is a month old convo now and I'm done with it. I think that an MLB featured list with a fixed, narrow criteria is better for MLB player articles than a multi-sport list with at least a thousand names and a much bigger criteria. Simple as that. I'm muting this now. Goodbye. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Will Bailey -- The West Wing.webp

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Will Bailey -- The West Wing.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford

Congratulations, Omnis Scientia! The list you nominated, First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hey man im josh (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Scott Miller (sportswriter) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Scott Miller (sportswriter). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and those sources should be reliable and independent. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jews in baseball

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jews in baseball you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The Mick

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I urge you to revert your recent edits to The Mick, as they go against the consensus of an RM; see Talk:The Mick (TV series). 162 etc. (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@162 etc., I'm so sorry, I did not know. Will do so immediately. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
No problem, the discussion was at a different talk page so it wasn't immediately obvious. 162 etc. (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I will ask for a technical move for the initial one so that may take some time. Again, my apologies. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New York Mets coaches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBS Albany.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jews in baseball

The article Jews in baseball you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jews in baseball for comments about the article, and Talk:Jews in baseball/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Society for American Baseball Research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of SABR regional chapters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of SABR regional chapters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of SABR regional chapters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

Would you please attend to the undefined references in Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence? You add a great lump of text, copied from Butt of malmsey without the required attribution, and do not take the effort to make sure you have copied over the sources called by harv/sfn references witihin it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello there! I previously made sure but I think the original creator reversed it and something went wrong there when I re-reversed it. Its a long story - but of course I will. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, it's the second time I've noticed it added to the no-target errors category by you today. Thank you for fixing it this time. DuncanHill (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Must have overlooked a few then. But no worries. And thank you for bringing it to my attention. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for Dan Gilbert

Hi Omnis Scienta, I am working to add information to the Dan Gilbert article. I see that you've contributed to the page in the past, so I hope you'll have an interest in the edit request I posted on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Gilbert#Additions_to_the_page. Would you consider adding information to the Early life and education and the Philanthropy sections?


Thanks for your help, Annie13478 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Annie13478, hello there! I'm afraid my very limited contribution to this page adding categories so I can't be of much help as I'm not aware of who Dan Gilbert is beyond that he's a sports owner. I do see that the most recent editor of the page knows a bit so I'd suggest you ask them about it. Best regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Ableist

I think I know what ableist means, and I am pretty sure I know what dumbing down means, but why would the phrase "dumbing down" be ableist? Polygnotus (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Claude.ai pointed out that "dumb" used to mean "unable to speak", which could be perceived as a handicap, but it seems it has lost that meaning over the years. I wouldn't say being dumb is a handicap when both the president of the richest and most powerful country and the richest man in the world are very very dumb. Polygnotus (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

In short it is something disability activists are trying to phase out, including the term "dumb" because of its historical usage. I hoped to educate a little - I may not take much offense but someone else may and indeed many have. Being kind with ones wording goes a long way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
But why? Being dumb is not a handicap or a disability right? And it certainly does not handicap people. Polygnotus (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not about being "dumb", i.e. some who is just ignorant and refuses to educate themselves at all; rather its whom its aimed at now days. I usually see this phrase aimed at education for people with learning difficulties or may be on the extreme side of neurodivergent. "Why are you dumbing down education, they need to try harder!" and what not. Omnis Scientia (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the people who write such things need to smarten up. I usually see the phrase "dumbing down" in the context of videogames. Polygnotus (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Mountbatten-Windsor

Hi. Regarding this edit. Not a huge issue, but Template:Mountbatten-Windsor is most certainly a navigational box. That's why it has navbox documentation and also why I chose to categorize it in Category:United Kingdom royalty and nobility navigational boxes, a subcategory of Category:United Kingdom royalty and nobility templates, per WP:CATSPECIFIC. The only reason I made the change is because I created Category:United Kingdom royalty and nobility templates and I watchlist all my page creations so I saw the inclusion. I realize there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of navboxes put in template categories where there are also more specific and more appropriate navbox categories by the same name. I leave it up to you. It's minor in the grand scheme of things and I have no intention of reverting.

You have a great rest of your day:) --DB1729talk 18:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for any inconveince! I'm trying to organize these categories a little bit here and there, trying to make some sense to them. They are a bit of a jumbled mess, to say the least! Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, I understand. DB1729talk 19:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2025

Women in Red | March 2025, Vol 11, Issue 3, Nos. 326, 327, 332, 333, 334


Online events:

Announcements from other communities:

Tip of the month:

  • You can access the Wikipedia Library if you have made 500+ edits, and 6+ months editing,
    and 10+ edits in the last 30 days, and No active blocks

Moving the needle:[1]

  • 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)
  • 23 Dec 2024: 20.009% (2,041,741 bios, 408,531 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,669 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

References

  1. ^ "Humaniki".

TFL notification

Hi, Omnis Scientia. I'm just posting to let you know that First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 4. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2025

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336


Online events:

Announcements (Events facilitated by others):

Tip of the month:

  • When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT.
    Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited,
    it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name.

Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool)

  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women)
  • 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women)

Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period!

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sandy Koufax

Hi Omnis, I’m not trying to be a pain, but wouldn’t mentioning being awarded athlete of the year twice in the lead be appropriate? Although a career in baseball, he is still considered an athlete and mentioning a prestigious award like that in the lead speaks to his overall greatness as a sports legend. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012, I definitely agree! Alas, there are strict rules about what goes into ledes and infoboxes of baseball players as well as the consideration for article length, this one already being quite big as it is. The main points - his early life, MLB career and awards, his significance to LA sports and the Jewish community, and his post-career life - are there.
It is certainly mentioned in the body of the article, along with other awards. Anything more extraneous, however, would be hard to fit into without going over the acceptable word limit of FA articles and general lede policies. Especially given articles like this are always being expanded for notable news pieces. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2025

Women in Red | May 2025, Vol 11, Issue 5, Nos. 326, 327, 337, 338


Online events:

Announcements (events facilitated by others):

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,269 articles during this period!
  • 21 Apr 2025: 20.090% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,061,363; 414,126 women)
  • 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% (2,057,083 bios; 412,857 women)

Tip of the month:

  • Those of you who experience harassment while trying to create or improve articles about women
    are welcome to bring your problems to our attention on the Women in Red talk page.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

MLB Centennial All-Time Teams

Hi Omnis, was wondering if when you had some free time you could check out the Major League Baseball Centennial All-Time Teams page I just created and let me know your thoughts. Please feel free to touch it up as well, thanks in advance. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This is pretty good! Can be put into a table like for similar articles but a great start, gathering all the information, the winners and nominees. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I just added tables for both teams. Not sure if I should do it for the nominees as the players selected to the All-Time Teams are also mentioned there, but let me know. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest you add them to the same tables but under the header for "Finallists" or "Runner-ups". The HOF induction year isn't required so you can replace those with runner ups. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Done✅ P.S. Koufax totally got snubbed😭 "(There is reason to suspect the writers didn’t really use the local nominees. Despite overwhelming support for Sandy Koufax as the people’s choice for left-handed pitcher, the writers ultimately chose Lefty Grove.)" GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Lol yeah, there were a lot of snubs. I don't mind Lefty Grove though, he was damn good for the era he was in and the choice between him, Koufax, and Hubbell was pretty tough. I think the biggest snub was that Warren Spahn was not even on the ballot for the "All-Time Team"! But then these guys chose Tris Speaker over Willie Mays and Joe DiMaggio over Ted Williams. And who would NOT choose Brooks Robinson as 3B? It's weird. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Also Mantle was snubbed as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Definitely some interesting choices. Not to mention poor Yogi🫣. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Yogi AND Campy. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 2 § Category:Jewish American state legislators

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 2 § Category:Jewish American state legislators on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 02:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omnis_Scientia/Archive_3&oldid=1293451125"