Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Merging of up to 165 articles

I know editors have brought up Deletion review here, and the review of articles not up for deletion, so I thought I would bring up the suggestion to merge up to 165 articles hereTalk:List_of_South_Park_episodes#Request_for_comment Ikip (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is the ARS supposed to have to do with the RFC discussion of the merging of articles? How is this not an attempt to notify a number of like-minded people without technically falling foul of WP:CANVASS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

I'll accept this as a good faith pre-emptive thing. We see many mass bundled AfDs and have encouraged merge discussion before piling multiple related articles onto an AfD - which are then tagged for rescue when it all could have been avoided. So this is in keeping with not abusing AfD process. Many of us are able to offer outside opinions because of our experiences with these issues and not being involved at the article-level or even the related wikiproject level. An RfC is under way but despite canvassing concerns some constructive dialog does seem to be taking place. -- Banjeboi 11:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging would be the same as deletion, if there is no way to save that much information. Merge usually just means delete, with the history of the article preserved, and a redirect left where the article once was. They knew the series was too popular to nominate the episodes for deletion outright, so did this instead. Many do not want episode list to exist at all, having said so before, and are trying to get rid of them, by any means available. Some of these episodes have had work done on them to make them pass the notability requirements, however most have never had any third party media mention at all. To these they wish to delete, or reduce to very brief summaries. If all episode articles for a popular series are seen as worth saving, or simply have the right to exist, then the rescue squadron members may wish to get involved. Or if the members want to pick an episode at random, to search for mentions of it in the news somewhere, that would help save some I suppose. Dream Focus 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly adding references about the individual articles (not just plot summaries) from newspapers or other sources that are reliable (generally referred to as reliable sources) would help to "save" any article from being deleted by "them". pablo_hablo. 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I've restored this section as generally even "off"-topic discussions bear fruit here. Is there any actual ARS related anything that we need to address? If not I suggest we archive this in a day or so and encourage those interested to discuss the issues over there. -- Banjeboi 12:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It may bear fruit, but it may not be the kind of fruit we like. I know that not all (or even most) editors here have the same intentions, but when you see a project devoted to the improvement of articles at AfD start to get involved in unrelated merge discussions, when people with one specific userbox get invited to this project, when members of this project contact other members of this project with a plea for help in an AfD against an article they created, ... then you get the impression that at least some of the editors here use this project for different, much wider aims than the originally claimed purpose. Trying to keep this project focused and to discourage unrelated canvassing (requesting help from a pre-opiniated group of editors) are good practices on talk pages, and the easiest way is by removing such posts, not by archiving them after most of the intended audience has seen it anyway. Fram (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand the concerns but, frankly, I feel they are a bit out of portion. Although things get a bit dramatic at times, the net result is that those efforts have little effect if they are baseless. This is a Wikiproject and posts and discussions inform what we do. I was quite happy in my little corner before but by remaining active here I've gained insights that I likely would have missed otherwise. I hear the frustration but those invites can be used by anyone, to invite anyone. And our official invite and welcome templates are pretty darn NPOV, IMHO. In any case, even if we think this thread is off-topic why wouldn't we archive it away? Simply deleting it seems like a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Template for articles under deletion review?

I propose creating a template for articles under deletion review. Ikip, are you up to that? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you recall, I did create this, and it was promptly deleted by the editor I made it for. But it will take me two seconds to remake it. Ikip (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be the goal of this? If you want to improve a deleted article, just ask pretty much any admin to undelete and userfy/projectify it for you. A Nobody does this all the time, and ideally this is done before a DRV. If it's an article that wasn't deleted that's at DRV, 99% of the time it's at DRV because of some issue other than not being well-sourced enough. (Typical issues involve copyvio, libel, etc.) With a goal, that informs the form and use of the template.

A simple cat (or a template with the cat, if you really want) to link this project's userfied-with-the-intent-of-restoration pages would probably be a good idea, come to think of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreated, Template:AfD/Tagged I am going to combine several templates to make one grand template. Ikip (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The coding is right here:

{|class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" align=right  cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" width=300px
!style="background: #cdc"| Articles tagged for [[wp:AFD|deletion]] 
|-
|align=left| <categorytree mode=pages>Articles for deletion</categorytree>
|}
<noinclude>[[Category:Article Rescue Squadron]]</noinclude>

18:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ARS Template at deletion

Our project's main template has been nominated for deletion, a third time. All input appreciated. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#Template:Rescue -- Banjeboi 11:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the comments in the previous two discussions. The arguments there for keeping are still valid. (I could say more, but I suspect that I might become a victim of the slippery slope towards WP:NPA. -- llywrch (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be going reasonably well and civilly. Hopefully it will stay that way... -- Banjeboi 11:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be appropriate to tag this template for rescue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! We're also listed under Lamest edit wars in Wikipedia:Lame#Metapages - "Put up for deletion 3 times. Can anyone see the irony and futility in such a gesture?" - priceless. -- Banjeboi 13:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Resolved

 – I'm boldly closing this thread as unproductive and pointy, an RfC where editors making blanket staements is already in process. -- Banjeboi 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is not an all-purpose noticeboard. If it doesn't have to do with improving articles at AFD (or at least up for deletion) or improving AFD process, it really doesn't belong here.

This is true whether the poster's intent is to inform people, to skew a debate, or to establish an independent nation for the native people of Moldovia. "Assume good faith" does not mean "indefinitely tolerate misuse of this talk page." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are duly noted, again. Please consider that what you think everyone here should do and what they think they should do could vary a bit. As we are all volunteers I suggest considering ignoring threads you don't care for rather than deleting them. Multi-merge discussions certainly are associated with the work we do here as are many policy issues. We are not trained robots that simply only do one thing. We are working to improve the entire project just as all other Wikiprojects do - suppressing discussion is a terrible approach and will likely backfire, consistently. Your input is often helpful but i think more will "hear" you if it were measured more civilly. We all get frustrated but remain responsible for our own actions here. -- Banjeboi 03:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What part of rescuing badly-written articles from being deleted at AFD has to do with merges of any sort?

Merging is not a subject that is distasteful to me, but using this talk page as Unified Inclusionism Noticeboard is a problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are many versions of inclusionism. There's inclusions of articles, which is what we dicuss at afd (in principle) and inclusion of content within an article. Jusrt as one of the conclusions at afd can be merge or redirect, these are also ways of saving articles. I really hope nobody here is really determined upon saving everything as an article that could possibly be saved as a separate article, when there might be a better way of handing it. And one of the ways of saving articles needing work is to decide to not work on the ones that wouyld not in practice repay the effort. So we can realistically discuss quite a lot of things here. This is not a process oriented project, but one aimed at getting results: rescuing content and articlesin caseswhere it is appropriate by whatever means is appropriate, DGG (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have restored the section to which User:A Man In Black objects as there is no consensus for its removal. The ways in which mergers are handled is currently developing as Articles for Merger. As mergers are commonly discussed at AFD, the ARS has a proper interest in this development and examples of major mergers. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you lot just come out and be honest about what you do here - instead of all the weasel words and running around? This is an inclusionist canvass forum. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to be a deletionist but deletionist doesn't mean that I want every article on wiki deleted. Some articles need saved and some don't. Everyone in this group draws that line at a different place based on their interpretation of the notability guidelines. I'm not really sure what else to say to you since you've obviously made your mind up. OlYeller^Talktome 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This RfC was posted on WP:EPISODES and WP:FICT. When I brought up concerns about canvassing, Bignole responded:

It's not "bad" canvassing if you notify relevant parties. If you're notifying relevant projects, then that's ok. If you notify them with the message of "come save these articles"...eh, not so much (not saying you would, just pointing it out). The "bad" canvassing is when you notify people not directly related to the discussion (like specific editors).

That is when I posted this subsection here.

Rescue is a relevant project. It is no secret that the exact same editors who delete content often merge content. The same process of adding sources went on in the merge discussion as went on in a AfD tagged for rescue. Ikip (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"This project is opposed to deletionists, and deletionists like to merge articles too, so this project is relevant."

No. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:NYRepresentatives

It seems to me that {{NYRepresentatives}} should be kept if the rest of Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes, but it is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6#Template:NYRepresentatives. I know you don't put rescue tags on templates, but this should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag can be used for templates, categories, DRVs, etc. We are still working on improving rescue 101 tips for newby editors so haven't gotten round to building documentation for the other uses. -- Banjeboi 07:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither notability nor cleanup is necessary to fix this template. If the problems with the subject can't be fixed by editing them, {{rescue}} is inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Neither this project's name, nor its description, nor the tag placed on the template, have anything to do at all with templates. Fram (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of the project is what matters here. And this does come down to, again, why the drama over a tag that will be gone in a few days? The spirit of this project is keeping things from being deleted because an editor reasonably belives they meet the policies for inclusion and should be kept. It's quiblling that a template is/isn't notable as that's obviously not the context of that XfD. -- Banjeboi 10:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I agree whole heartedly with Benjiboi. I think Ben has the best interest of this project in mind. Ben has done more for this project than anyone. New editors actively email him for help with articles they are attempting to save, and he eagerly gives them help. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Comment on content, not on contributors" works in both directions: irrelevant praise for an editor is not helpful in these discussions, no matter how deserved it may be. And no one is creating "drama", Benjiboi; people are discussing whether templates, categories, ... are within this projects scope or not. Certainly not by the letter, and in my opinion not in the spirit of this project. A "rescue squadron" for an article can save an article by adding good sources, removing rubbish or trivialities from articles , make it more neutral, ... Template and category discussions, on the other hand, rarely if ever involve actual changes to the template or category, but are about policy and guideline interpretations, which is a completely different thing. Announcing these deletions to the ARS looks much more like people inviting "keep" opinions than an invitation to actually improve things. Just witness the post that started this section, which is luckily an honest post and not some semi-"neutral" post to not-neutral editors: the opening post is pure canvassing, announcing to a people with a more-than-average inclusionist leaning that you think that X should be kept. To avoid the drama, AMiB nor I removed this canvassing immediately, but discussed it instead. To no avail, apparently. Fram (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"The spirit of this project is keeping things from being deleted because an editor reasonably belives they meet the policies for inclusion and should be kept."

No. That's Wikipedia:Wikiproject Inclusion. This is the project that improves badly-written or badly-sourced articles on notable subjects at AFD. None of those things apply to this template or templates in general. This is not a general-purpose inclusionism noticeboard and {{rescue}} is not a general-purpose don't-delete-this tag. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can agree to disagree if drama is indeed being created or not. And, A Man In Black, your self-appointed guardian of what ARS is or is not is hereby rescinded. We each decide for ourselves what is the best use of our energies. And no one has suggested the rescue tag is an all-purpose anything but you. There has been no case where the template has been applied that - meh, it will be over in a few days who cares? - wouldn't apply. There is simply no reason to get up at arms over this template. I see this as unneeded excitement over nothing. I felt the same way at our last TfD and apparently the community did as well. Is someone being harmed in some way that a template page, that almost no one will even look at, has the rescue tag? Is this somehow misleading, being abused, halting constuctive dialog or violating any policies whatsoever? I think not. Add to that mix that few editors take part in AfD and far less in TfDs. This is simply a case of other editors who specialize in finding solutions being asked to weigh in on a template. Can we help on it? I think so. Will any detrimental consequences befall anything anywhere for adding it to the mix? I rather doubt it. To me this is stirring up problems that aren't there. If no one had said anything the template discussion would simply plod on, ARS folks would peek at it and offer insight if they felt able. Good lord, they might actually learn something. I'm utterly underwhelmed at any negative consequences for having the rescue template on templates. I believe this echoes the consensus that the rescue template is a net benefit to Wikipedia. If there is actual harm taking place please point it out so we can make an informed decision on the matter. And Fram, we encourage editors to post to this page if they are unsure in some way if they should add a tag. Presented neutrally or not ARS members generally act the same towards all tagged items, they help if they can. Other folks surely come equiped with an agenda of some other sort but luckily they are seen for this and the net benefit of the project isn't weighed down by this unique take on improving content. And here again we're spinning wheels about, IMHO, a non-issue rather than helping editors and articles. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well. I could just block everyone I see using ARS's tools to canvas, or speedily delete the tools I see being used to disrupt discussions. I figure stern words and eliminating the source of disruption in a less heavy-handed way would be less destructive. But "ARS folks would peek at it and offer insight if they felt able" is a problem. It is a large problem, and it worries me that you did not notice that many editors described it as a problem in the {{rescue}} TFD. {{rescue}} "is not about casting keep votes", it's about rescuing articles through normal editing.

You can decide for yourself what is the best use of your energies. By all means, argue to keep stridently. But "meh, it will be over in a few days, who cares?" is not justification to use ARS's tools to canvass for inclusion in a few-day-long discussion. This template isn't badly written and notability is not at issue.

Remember, "the ARS ensure that articles about notable topics do not get deleted when they can be rescued through normal editing which per WP:AFD means that it was not a good candidate for AfD." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated assertions that we are all inclusionists/canvassing one another, that the rescue template is somehow being abused and veiled threats of blocking editors who are working to improve Wikipedia are all distasteful and unwelcome. It's unfortunate the concept of working with others is being lost here but I hope you'll consider focusiing on subjects that you do enjoy instead. This will likely be less stressful for all concerned and a net benefit for those articles. -- Banjeboi 12:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You stated outright that you wanted to get members of the project to come to the TFD and comment. This is not a neutral noticeboard, and has not been for a good long time if ever. Protesting that everyone here wants to improve Wikipedia rings hollow when everyone on this project is (at least assumed to be) here to improve Wikipedia; this project wants to improve Wikipedia in a very specific way and makes no bones about that.

You wanted a project that saved articles from deletion to come to a TFD and comment. This is naked canvassing and people get blocked for this.

I want to stop this canvassing and gameplaying now, before this becomes Partisan Noticeboard and gets deleted. I believe in the good-faith efforts of members of this project, in the good work of this project, and in the good intentions of this project. Letting canvassing run rampant will turn this into a toxic partisan battleground for ages, until all assumption of good faith is exhausted and it is deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

When I talk about gameplaying, I mean exhausting three reverts at {{NYRepresentatives}} and immediately starting in on trying to add by hand to this talk page the links that ARSBot would automatically add above, the same links which are being criticized here as inappropriate canvassing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are near the point where this project should be MFD'd - this conversation makes it explictly clear what is going on here and how this project is intended to game the system. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Benjiboi, you can claim that no canvassing has happened as much as you like, but when a post starts with "It seems to me that {{NYRepresentatives}} should be kept" and ends with "I know you don't put rescue tags on templates, but this should be kept.", and you send it to a group of people who are by and large inclusionists (remember, many members were recruited by targeting those editors self-identifying as "inclusionist" in the first place), then there is no other word for it than "canvassing". And your logical fallacy that keeping things equals improving Wikipedia gets tired. Deleting things can equally improve Wikipedia. I enjoy Wikipedia, and I enjoy fair discussions, so I try to avoid attempts to skew discussions in favour of one POV, which is what is happening here.

As you said above: "the net benefit of the project isn't weighed down by this unique take on improving content.": please focus on that, improving content, and stay (as the ARS, not personally) away from categories and templates. Fram (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, speaking as an outsider to this project: I think it's entirely reasonable to characterize {{NYRepresentatives}} as a template on a "notable subject" that is "badly written" and needs to be reorganized in order to be saved. I would not have assumed from reading the mission statement that it would be inappropriate to bring a template here for rescue.

I don't have any opinion on whether it is appropriate for this project, or whether Benjiboi's actions constitute inappropriate canvassing -- only that it is not obvious on its face that templates do not apply here, and it seems unfair to assume bad faith on his part for trying to bring it here. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has to assume any sort of faith on Banjeboi's part; he stated that he intended for people to come from this project to comment on the TFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've started an RfC to address the rather unfortunate deletions of my posting a link to a TfD discussion. Hopefully this will put to rest this chapter of blanket accusations. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My page

Resolved

 – Kept/merged at AfD. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I need help with President of the Republic of Texas Thanks! JMS Old Al (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pillar of Fire (novel) (1995)

Resolved

 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This book came out before everything and its cousin was reviewed on the web, so I'm having trouble finding sourcing. Since I'm the primary editor, I'm asking for help here instead of adding the {{Rescue}} template to the article myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the primary editor is quite expected to add {{Rescue}} where they feel it should be rescued, especially in your scenario. In any case, I have added it, mostly because of the existing Keep !votes. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as adding it myself goes, I found this paragraph on the main page:

If you are the main editor of the article tagged for deletion,... then please post a message including the article's title on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

So, figured it would be better to do it this way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well noted! I've stuck out my wrong comments. 04:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please save Jim Brandstatter

Some stupid A known deletionist afded an article I created less than 24 hours ago with again a weak 2 sentence nomination. Please help save me it. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680, here's two pieces of advice. They might help others who come to this talk page, which is why I'm leaving them here rather than on your talk page:

1) Don't blame the deletionists. In general there's a continuum from "unsourced" to "completely oversourced", on which all articles fall. The more you (or ARS or anyone) do to move any article along that continuum towards "completely oversourced", the more people will support the article being kept, or will never consider nominating it for deletion in the first place. You're already well on your way to saving the article yourself, which leads to tip #2...

2) NEVER build an article from scratch in mainspace. Unless it already exists as a stub, your page will show up as a newly created page. Unless you're willing to type an insane amount into the edit box before saving it, that means the first time it appears, it will look incomplete and under/unsourced... because it will be! The new page patrollers, trying to keep useless junk out of the encyclopedia, will have a really high false positive rate, and will nominate articles that currently stink but are well on their way to becoming useful. They only see a snapshot in time... and often, not a flattering one. I STRONGLY recommend that you build your articles in your own userspace, and then move (move command or copy/paste doesn't really matter) them into mainspace once you have all the basics covered: why/how is this notable? Does it have sufficient sourcing? etc. Then, when an article appears in mainspace fully formed, with good notability assertions and reliable sourcing to back them up, all new page patrollers will bow to your awesomeness. Well, not really, but they'll at least just skip it as an obvious encyclopedic contribution. :-)

Hope that helps, Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A third tip: you've got two strikes against you whenever you're writing about a living person. Biographies of living people have a lot of potential for actual harm, in a way most articles don't have. If you write a new bio on a living person, assume it will be at AFD and be ready for this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good advice both of you, I added several sources.

TomCat4680, I would suggest editing out what you said above. It only hurts you.Ikip (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I started it in hopes it would be expanded though and not afded or speedy afded less than 24 hours later. Fortunately, several editors proved he is notable with several sources. I am also now aware of new page patrollers for the first time. Muchas gracias for the help amigos. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be smart to apologize on that AfD for being over-zealous, etc. Even if someone is a deletionist we extend good faith that everyone is here to improve Wikipedia even if our methods differ. BTW, you might want to send your new article to WP:DYK if it meets those criteria. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologized to the user directly. The incident is over. So anyways I think the DYK is a good idea. How about the fact that Jim is most known for being a Michigan Wolverines broadcaster and player, but his parents and brother were all graduates of their inner-state rivals Michigan State (and his dad and brother played for their football team). I'd feel arrogant nominating my own article for DYK, so can someone help me out here? I guess wait until after the afd is closed though, bad idea to have an active afd article on DYK, though it looks like it should be closed per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY right now but the admin I asked to close it said give it a little more time before WP:STICK applies. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a note of mea culpa on the AfD as well if you haven't already. This suggests you realize the error, blah blah blah. You shoould do the DYK looking to the strongest relaible sourced and interesting info. At DYK, mention it's at AfD but you expect it will be kept. Also note you're open to any other hooks, suggestions, etc. The DYK clock will be suspended until the AfD finishes but you should still probably start the process to allw others to help. I'll help if noone else steps up. -- Banjeboi 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to stay away from the nominator so its probably better that I left the afd alone. I apologized on all other discussions I had with him so need no need to continue poking him with a sharp stick. He already thinks I'm "canvassing" by starting THIS discussion. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the AfD has been closed per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. Thanks everybody for helping me expand it. I'm really glad there's groups like this. So about that DYK, here's my idea, something like: DYK: although Jim Brandstatter is most known as the long time radio color commentator and former player on the Michigan Wolverines football team and host of their weekly highlights and discussion show Inside Michigan Football (f.k.a. Michigan Replay), since 1980, he was the only member of his immediate family to attend Michigan. Both of his parents and his older brother all graduated from Michigan State. Even more interesting is the fact that his father was an All-American fullback on the Michigan State Spartans football team in 1936, and his brother was a defensive end for the Spartans from 1959-1961. Thoughts? P.S. I think it'd be very inappropriate at this time to nominate it myself since I took the AfD way too personally and got myself blocked over an edit war and flame war with the nominator. So can someone please do it for me please? I'd really appreciate it. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's WAY too long for DYK, the upper limit for hooks is about 200 characters. How about something like "...although Jim Brandstatter is best known as a color commentator for the Michigan Wolverines, his father and brother both played for local rivals Michigan State Spartans?" the wub "?!" 22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Put it on DYK! Keep me updated. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)