Talk:Dick Butkus

AOTS

Did this get locked because of AotS or because of his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.198.131 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Film and Television Career

Butkus played the role of Ed Connor, an auto body shop owner in 1988 comedy/teen movie Crash Course. 2600:1014:B1E5:FB30:752A:E382:5887:D2BF (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m honestly not sure A listing of his scant acting filmography and TV roles is all that noteworthy. I mean, sure, it exists, but he’s best known for his NFL career as a member of the Chicago Bears in the 1960s and 1970s. 2601:405:4000:1F50:99D2:C663:C4CD:1CF4 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Chicago

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell WP:OVERLINKscript delinks "Chicago" because it is a well-known major city, therefore a link is not deemed necessary. In MOS:OL, "usually" means to not link without good reason, and what good reason is there to link it here? One possible reason would be if this article was linked from Chicago, but it isn't. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how the NFL Wikipedia world has survived so long ... I think this overlink garbage has been taken to a new level. Let it go. Stick with Hollywood and the like. An NFL player has links for the city of birth, even when the high schools and colleges are located in the same area, and as far as I know, nobody died yet. I'm not in the mood to ping anyone, whoever is out there is probably reading this anyway. P.S. Any NFL player with Chicago, Detroit, LA, NYC is getting a link. So you can plan on your edits adding up. -- See you soon. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't "NFL Wikipedia". This is Wikipedia, and WP:MOS should not be ignored without good reason, and other content isn't such a reason. It's not "garbage" to respect guidelines, let alone to acknowledge the fact that the overwhelming majority of readers familiar with the NFL will also be familiar with cities like Chicago, etc. As for other NFL player articles, the fact they include these unnecessary links isn't a reason to apply that same mistake here, rather it's a reason to correct those articles as well as this one. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I knew you had your phone plugged in. You know, I always believed that you took this to a new level. You've done this before, you saw the reverts ... and yet. Take it up with someone else. And btw, NFL players will still be reverted. Opinions are like ... call ended. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's just common sense to avoid unnecessary links in accordance with MOS guidelines. Why exactly this offends your sensibilities so much that you're being passive aggressive about it is beyond me. I'm not taking it up with you personally, that's why I've taken this matter to the talkpage, so that other editors may add their opinion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, your aside that Template:Tq is a violation of WP:POINT. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

For starters, what harm does linking Chicago do? Seriously though? Over-enforcement of policies shouldn't be done on Wikipedia either. Overlink is a guideline to prevent articles from having excessive links. This page does not have excessive links. I count 14 links in the infobox and opening paragraph that the majority of readers of NFL readers would be familiar with, those are ok but Chicago isn't? A policy that doesn't straight up forbid something is hardly a reason to exclude something and everything you're claiming that policy says, it doesn't. You hardly have any leg to stand on here except a policy that says it usually shouldn't be linked not flat out saying it should never be linked.--Rockchalk717 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. We don't just link words for the sake of it. I don't see how this is "over-enforcement" exactly, given there's been no prior discussion of this issue here for local consensus to develop its own variety of MOS. I'm not saying the article as a whole has excessive links, I'm just saying this particular link is considered such by WP:OVERLINKscript. Those other links you mention are different in that they're not Template:Em examples of Template:Tq. Nothing is being inherently "excluded" by not linking the city, no more than any other word is being excluded for not being linked. As for Template:Tq, I don't know where you think I've misrepresented the guideline. Per WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE, MOS should be followed, not ignored, unless we have a good reason to do so, which I don't believe we have here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an essay you just tried and failed to use to apply to this. It literally says in the description of an essay at the top that it's an opinion of an editor. You misinterpreted what "usually" means and attempted to point to an essay and one page that looks like it's some sort of coding guideline to explain what usually means. You keep referencing WP:OVERLINKscript] which isn't a policy that is something that is once again an editor's opinion, furthering cementing your entire claim isn't backed any policy that a commonly known city like Chicago shouldn't under any circumstance be linked. And I wasn't asking what harm does it do to include it linked as an argument for inclusion, I'm just legitimately trying to figure out why in god's name do you think overlink so damn important that you need to so desperately defend your argument. So I'll ask again now that you understand my intent: What harm does it do to link Chicago?--Rockchalk717 01:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK is not an essay, it's a guideline. As for WP:OVERLINKscript, it's a script that implements that guideline, while offering further comment in keeping with that guideline, so it's not just "an opinion of an editor". I haven't misinterpreted anything. "Usually" means usually, and how is this an unusual situation? MOS is a guideline that is meant to be followed in usual circumstances, and you've failed to explain how this is not one of those circumstances. What harm does it do to Template:Em link Chicago? Is there any particular reason why it's fundamental to this article? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't call overlink an essay, WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE is the essay I was referring and that script page says nothing you're claiming it does and doesn't provide any additional guidance for enforcement. Yes usually means usually, but what it doesn't mean is never, like you are acting it does. By linking Chicago we aren't ignoring the manual of style. We are linking a word in a page that a MOS page suggests to not link but it doesn't flat out ban linking it. That policy is literally to give guidelines to prevent a page from having too many links, but nowhere does it say to never link any of the stuff it lists. There is literally one thing flat out banned in that policy and that's linking when the link redirects back to the same page, like what sometimes happens with links to some songs on album pages as an example. So by strictly enforcing a policy that does not outright ban something you are over-enforcing it. In fact when you look at most things in the MOS, very little is outright banned.

So here's your choices, since this is going nowhere:

1. Drop this and move on

2. Provide a better argument than providing a policy that doesn't flat out ban linking Chicago

3. We get an intervention, because apparently 2 people disagreeing with you isn't enough.

So, what's it gonna be?--Rockchalk717 05:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It may be an essay, but it's one that you haven't refuted, just dismissed. Again, you're not specifying what you're referring to by Template:Tq. I'm not acting it means "never", all I've pointed out is that it ought to apply in usual circumstances, and you've consistently failed to point out how the circumstances here are unusual. I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why a link is needed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Replyto I've asked for input from other editors because this is going nowhere. I will not be speaking directly to you about this anymore.--Rockchalk717 00:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested at WP:3O--Rockchalk717 00:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• File:Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion and I am commenting in response to that request as a third-party, however while it appears three editors have already commented, I will give an opinion just to try to help move things along. I do want to start by acknowledging that I have used the same script and while it is helpful, MOS:OVERLINK is not always black-and-white and the script has caused disputes before, I've seen several of them myself. Therefore, just because the script removes it doesn't mean that should be the reason it is removed if that removal is contested.

That out of the way, Chicago is indeed a major city, one of the few American cities that per the AP and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) are so large and well-known that they don't even require a comma-based disambiguation as cities usually do (for example Chicago and Atlanta compared to Tallahassee, Florida or most other cities). With that in mind, Chicago would be a major example of a location and would generally not be linked. However, while the MOS is firm on some things, this is not one of them as it is explicit that it is generally not linked, not that it must not be linked; the Manual of Style does not mandate its removal even though it meets the criteria of something that would generally not be listed. It further elaborates that Template:Tq so the question is does that fulfill that purpose? Given how many Chicago-based things are already wikilinked in the prose I don't think it's super helpful as a link in the prose, but at the same time it's not hurting anything or making a WP:SEAOFBLUE by being blue rather than black (as default colors) in the infobox, where the concern of overemphasis of links is less pronounced than the prose.

All of that being said, I don't think it should be linked in the article prose itself for the reasons given, but I can see a reasonable exception made for a single link in the infobox itself, which is where I personally would reasonably expect to see such a navigational aid, if one were to be included at all. Hopefully this at least gives some food for thought, but if more input is needed there are additional forms of dispute resolution available. I apologize for the length of the comment, but I wanted to be thorough and give the best information. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That last paragraph sums up the way I've been going with it regarding NFL players. I can see Chicago, Illinois, with just Chicago linked -- Detroit, Michigan with just Detroit linked and so on. I've taken links off PA when Pitt and Philly are the cities. This all started when the city link was removed and then the demand due to overlink reasoning was typed there for us to obey. Example: the Ronald Reagan infobox. I'm still linking the city regarding the NFL players. Like the hundreds I've seen already. Thank you

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell and

1. REDIRECT Template:Reply to

Template:Redirect category shell - Bringingthewood (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Replyto Your response was perfect. I'm not asking Neveselbert to link other instances of Chicago or to link Illinois or even include Illinois in the display for the link, but to make a single link in the infobox and the editor's refusal to budge on forced me to need other dispute resolution.--Rockchalk717 03:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to respect the local consensus here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)