User talk:Centaur271188/Archive 1

Centaur271188, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Centaur271188! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Centaur271188. You have new messages at Qed237's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Qed237 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on UEFA Euro 2016 squads. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

Hi, when you update tables please make sure to make proper updates. Twice already today I had conflict because you did not update the table properly. For example this edit had to be corrected because a) You failed to uppdate timestamp and displayed table as "irst match(es) will be played on 1 September 2016" (my bolding), and b) Uzbekistan, Qatar, Syria and China PR was not in first place. You made the same mistake twice so thought I should let you know. Also I am planning on updating all tables during this international break (if matches are played while I am awake). Qed237 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can update the tables whenever you want. What I was trying to say is that if you are not sure how to update the tables, someone else will do it. Better to do it correct than sloppy, but I am sure you are more than capable to update them. Qed237 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how about the date in this edit. I am sorry to say it but you seem to be forgetting a lot. Qed237 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the date again? I am sorry but this is your final warning before I start putting templates for disruptive editing on you. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the matchresult was not updated this time. Qed237 (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: OK, I think I should walk away from tables for a while :( There must be something wrong with my mind recently. Centaur271188 (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be hard on you, I know you are a really good editor. Take some time of tables might be a good idea, but come back. Qed237 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And dont worry about it, is is not easy to remember everything. Qed237 (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: It is OK. I wholly understand if you feel annoyed. I am somewhat annoyed with myself too :) Centaur271188 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, dont be to hard on yourself. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Centaur271188. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Athletic season

I think I will leave the match updates to you for the future, quite fiddly to sort it all. And you will probably prefer to know it is done right instead of having to check my stuff for mistakes. It is a very well maintained article. However if you do need a hand with any of it, please let me know. I'll still try to update any transfers and stuff if I spot them, unless you ask me not to. Happy editing! Crowsus (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Thanks for updating. Please feel free to edit if you can, because you are doing quite well. Do not worry about some small details which I fixed, they are not big issues at all. Personally, I would like to check and correct (if needed) rather than make everything from scratch :) Centaur271188 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I'll try and add the matches when I am online anyway. Can't guarantee I can keep up to date on it but hopefully I can be some use. :) Crowsus (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Regarding your recent changes about Raul Garcia and Mikel Rico, I think it should be R. Garcia and M. Rico to correspond to template:Athletic Bilbao squad; moreover it seems uncommon to have such long names in match reports. When doing 2015–16 Athletic Bilbao season, I was confused about displaying Spanish names; after a while I decided to simplify it by mentioning only paternal family names, in all cases. Maybe this way is better. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I think R.Garcia etc is a good idea and will change it. Garcia on its own didn't really look right as it is a very common surname and the player is always referred to with both names (as with Rui Costa, for example, if it just said Costa it would seem a bit unusual). But you're right to ignore the maternal names. You will probably have noticed that newspapers and other websites from non-Latin countries make a bit of a mess of it at times if they were supplied with the players official names! In Athletic Bilbao, I have seen 'Iker Goñi'(Muniain) and 'Javier Goñi'(Eraso) in reports before - I think they distantly related although never confirmed that. Regards Crowsus (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Hi, thanks for your edit in the match against Spartak Moskva, that fact is really worth mentioning. However, I think it is awkward to use that reference in a statistics table. Perhaps it matches better with the report's context, where it is directly related to other information. I would like to mention Mikel Rico's 'goal' in another way, possibly by writing a simple note right above the table :) Centaur271188 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yeah that's fine, what I would suggest is maybe add the note above the table as you said, and maybe have the ref also pointing next to the goal in the results as well? Whatever you think is fine by me, thanks for letting me know. Crowsus (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Hi, sorry if my expression was not clear enough to you, actually I was only puzzled with the reference's details - "Kutepov? Goalbound shot? They seem to have no clear relationship with other information in this section" - not the fact that we left a note in the table (it is OK, not a big issue). Therefore I prefer to keep your well detailed note in the match report, and use a simpler one in the statistics. I think it is more specific to place that note in 'Europa League goals' column, and we should mention the match and date clearly to help readers find the information more quickly. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But using the format you wisely picked, we can have a short reference in the player stats table, and within that, the reference to the match in question and its detailed note. Or, if you prefer, what might be most user-friendly is for the stats note to read as you had it, but with a jump link to the match details which makes it clear what is being referred to: "He is credited with a goal against Spartak Moskva on 15 February 2018 by some sources"...? (unfotunately it only seems to jump to the Europa League section, I think the 'Knockout' term is too many levels down in the display) Crowsus (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the jump link is a good idea :) And do not worry, your link works well, the jump is not that good because we reach the end of the article. The 'Knockout phase' subsection is too short now, but we will expand it soon :) Centaur271188 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iker Muniain

Hi, Centaur. Here says the yellow card against Osasuna was retired. If Athletic had won today you would have given me a fright because of the options of my team to avoid relegation, but nope. :-D Asturkian (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Asturkian: Thanks for replying that soon :) and sorry for the relegation :( I did notice a situation in which Gijon could survive, at the expense of Deportivo, but personally I think it is quite unlikely ^^ Centaur271188 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your recent editing history at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group G shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 21:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: OK, I understood the warning. I hope you can join us at Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Formats and have some words, because we are getting nowhere. All my arguments are still there, it may be irrelevant to repeat them here, but I would like to mention this one: SuperJew may want to change the format for all 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification articles to reach his consistency, but they were being consistent until he showed up and made the changes. I still do not understand how this new consistency is better than the old one, some of us are in favour of the format which we have used since the start of qualification, without any disputes, errors or troubles until now. Centaur271188 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur271188, the new format is better in a few ways, as I explained multiple times to you. Apart from consistency, do you have any actual issues with the new format or reasons why you think the old one is better? --SuperJew (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: I think it is really irrelevant to discuss this issue in my talk page, because all people's arguments are at Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Formats. Therefore, I will appreciate very much if you leave a message here because of something involving myself only, not this public case. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

I don't entirely agree with the assumption that an exemption is listed. International competitions are where they represent the country and are competed for at national level, like the olympics or World Cup. The examples listed are miles away from representing team GB at Olympics. These are providing no additional benefit other than the country the team are based in and is essentially for decoration only. As a project we are going specifically against the spirit of MOS flag.Blethering Scot 20:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Blethering Scot:, you may not agree with the exemption, but the community consensus at WP:FOOTY is that it does exist. The flags are not simply there for decoration, they are there as a handy indicator to readers to show them what country each club was representing, since each club only competes in the competition as a representative of a UEFA member association and titles are often attributed to the nation as well as the club. To dismiss the flags as uninformative is to completely ignore their purpose. – Pee Jay 23:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia eliminated

Hello, Centaur271188. Can you add on map "Estonia eliminated with games to play."? GAV80 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GAV80: Of course. Thanks for telling me soon, I was updating Algeria when you called. I heard some editors discussed that Estonia would be the worst runners-up if they finish second, but I am not so sure. This UEFA qualification format is somewhat tricky. I wish we had a page or sandbox which explains these situations better :) Centaur271188 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA

Hey, I get what you are saying but the criteria or method as described is top four for conmebol. So winner or fourth does not matter. They qualify because they one of the best four teams. Kante4 (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Well, it does matter a little bit. I prefer 'winners', 'runners-up', '3rd place', '4th place'. Using them is quite similar to saying 'top 2', 'top 3'... but it helps readers to acknowledge teams' results better at the first glance. Would you like to discuss it in Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification? I think it will be better if other editors can have some words too. Centaur271188 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. But why does it matter, tbh? The method was top whatever and not winners. Kante4 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Centaur271188. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gabriel Jesus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Edit summaries are not where we place citations. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Have you read my edit summary? :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Gabriel Jesus. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: What kind of behaviour is this? Just template me and ignore discussing? Centaur271188 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been readded with a source, this time, since you couldn't be bothered to. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Your edit summary said 'fake news', didn't it? Anyway it still puzzles me, why do his other goals need no specific citations? Centaur271188 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation, just above the list, which doesn't include the second goal v Ecuador. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: OK, I am sorry for not understanding your message clearly. Centaur271188 (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draw between teams Italian Serie A

Hi,

You reverted a revision I did to Template:2017–18 Serie A table. The rule for classification is not for the end of the season it's for use when teams have the same number of points in the standings. It's the a way to split the teams when there's a draw between teams. RafaelS1979 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RafaelS1979: Hi, I do not speak Italian, but thanks to Google Translate, I found this in FIGC's PDF document (Article 51.6): "In caso di parità di punteggio fra tre o più squadre al termine di ogni Campionato..." (In case of a tie between three or more teams at the end of each Championship...). Am I right if I understand that we can only use such 'rules for classification' after the league finishes? Centaur271188 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League

Hi, personally I do find it interesting, in fact I mentioned it to my friend as soon as I heard that Roma had won, but can't guarantee that every editor would want it on the article of course, they are very protective of the UEFA competitions! The 8 from 8 nations in the Europa League is more unusual IMO but since the Spanish clubs have dominated both tournaments for so long, it would be good if it got spread around a bit (but then Sevilla might win tomorrow!), It's definitely trivia, but I don't see the harm in adding such things as long as they can be proved and don't dominate. :) Regards, Crowsus (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: Thanks, I also noticed the fact about 8 teams in Europa League quarter-finals but did not make any changes (unsure about its notability), anyway I am glad to see your edit there. I think such trivial things can be added and kept if editors feel OK; beside your note, we have a sentence at 2018 FIFA World Cup about (for the 1st time) 3 Nordic teams and 4 Arab teams in the finals. We can also improve them with links; alas, I found only an Armenian (wow) site mentioned "8 countries" situation, but could not load the page to check it out. 4 countries in Champions League semi-finals might have more media coverage. Centaur271188 (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowrap

Hey, it's currently all in one line for me. Kante4 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Oh, thanks for telling me. Perhaps it is because of my 1360x768 screen. I will check again using something with higher resolution :) Centaur271188 (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iñigo Martínez

Hi. Apparently a yellow he got against Celta was cancelled by the federation (along with one for Iñaki Williams). Link Hope this is the solution to the puzzle! Crowsus (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017–18 Eredivisie table

Hey. I engaged in an endless debate with someone on template aforementioned in my talk page. He insists that the cup winners (Feyenoord) should bear "X" in the table and explain the note (and "season in progress") that should not be there anymore. What should I do? And will you help me explain to him? Because in the template talk page he wrote very long about his reason, that looks more like a manifesto. Thank you. – Flix11 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: OK, I saw Enigmaman had opened a section about this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Need assistance with Template:2017–18 Eredivisie table. We had better discuss further there. Currently, I share Enigmaman's opinion (User talk:Enigmaman#Template:2017–18 Eredivisie table) and support you, as well as LICA98. Sb008, please join us in WikiProject Football. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga

Hey, i though RM has the third place confirmed. Or do the away goals on the h2h matchup not count? Kante4 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Away goals rule (AGR) does not apply in La Liga, so Real can overtake Atletico. Here is the link in La Liga template. Anyway, I prefer something more official, but I do not speak Spanish :( I will talk to Spanish editors (Asturkian, Wikizin) to see if they can improve this :) By the way, Serie A does not use AGR either (we have a link from FIGC in the template). Centaur271188 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thanks for that. Kante4 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artículo 201 La Liga rules

Hi, mate. Here I translate you the article 201:

Head-to-head.
Goal difference.
Goals for.

If the draw is between more than two teams:

Head-to-head between all the tied teams.
Goal difference between the tied teams.
Goal difference in all the tournament.
Goals for in all the league.

If the draw continues, fair play acts as tiebreaker.

201.4. talks about one-legged competitions, and that does not apply for the Spanish leagues at Wikipedia. Asturkian (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesliga

Hey, either go ahead and be bold or ask on the talk page what others think of that. Kante4 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and Morocco issue

Hi Centaur271188! Thanks for your message!

When I was adding the info about previous matches between all the teams at the World Cup, I was being quite conservative, trying to add just the basic information, but the fact that Morocco and Spain had faced each other only twice (and both games were just 11 days apart, official matches of the same stage, not a single friendly, not even after the 2010 World Cup when almost every country wanted to play against Spain) was strange enough to at least point it out. As I mentioned in the revert, both countries have active land borders, in Spain and in Morocco football is by far the most popular game, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation have been around for 62 years since 1956, and there is no meaningful animosity between both countries (although there have been discords between the two, those have been relatively minor and comparable to the disagreements many other countries have had -UK and Spain don't hate each other because of Gibraltar-, and in general their relation is close).

Now, after pointing out that "geography is quite unrelated to international football" (something I don't agree with at all -but that's the topic of a whole different conversation-) you give me some examples and reasons of why this happens. It's true, both are affiliated with different confederations, that's why I don't expect them to have a shared history of 192 games like Argentina and Uruguay, but this is still no reason enough to explain the low number of games given the characteristics of both countries, France and Saudi Arabia are not from the same confederation as Morocco, yet they have met 5 and 8 times respectively, mainly friendlies.

About the examples you give me, almost all have some issue that explains the lack of games. Panama and Colombia have faced each other 7 times, a number I actually consider surprisingly high because the most popular sport in Panama is baseball, not football. Baseball is also the most popular sport in Venezuela (which kind of explains why Venezuela is consistently the weakest member of Conmebol), cricket is the most popular sport in Guyana, and the whole Guayana Esequiba issue has deeply soured the relations between both, leading to a completely understandable lack of games. In addition to this, the border between Guyana and Venezuela is a "dead" border, meaning that nobody crosses it, there are no roads and no main rivers between the two countries, only jungle, exactly like between Suriname and Brazil, Suriname being so disconnected from Brazil that until last year there was not even a single direct flight between both countries, explaining also why there has been no games between the two of them (not considering also the huge differences in level between both teams -Brazil has no interest in facing such a weak foe-, differences that are way less deep between Morocco and Spain).

Turkey and Iran have faced each other 8 times. Now, the lack of games between Turkey and Iraq/Syria (only one each) is surprising, if I were writing an article about their previous matches, I will certainly start with the expression "Despite their geographical proximity, the two teams had faced each other only once" because there seems to be not many good reasons to explain the lack of games. Iran and Azerbaijan have faced each other 3 times, but the Association of Football Federations of Azerbaijan is only 26 years old.

China played several games not approved by FIFA against the Soviet Union (Russia is considered by FIFA its successor team), the Mongolian team was inactive until 1998, and North Korea... well, it's North Korea, what can I tell you (also their border is kind of dead, unlike Morocco and Spain). Kazakhstan team, which is also only 26 years old, have already played 3 times against China, 5 against Kyrgyzstan, and 4 against Uzbekistan, and 7 of those 12 games were after joining UEFA. The single game against Turkmenistan doesn't really surprises me given the isolation of Turkmenistan under Saparmurat Niyazov.

So, I absolutely understand your point, but I want to show you that the reason to add that small detail in the article was not because I just wanted, it has behind a strong logic and reasoning, and I consider important to keep it there so future readers can also realize the uncommon circumstances of the background between the two teams.

I hope you to have a good day! Felviper (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Felviper: Wow, honestly I did not expect such a detailed and helpful reply. Thanks a lot :) Anyway, it looks like I am the only one who has issues with that piece of information, and my revert has been undone at least twice, so I am happy to withdraw. Centaur271188 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup statistics

2 + 1 = 4??? --Jphwra (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jphwra: Sorry, my bad. Thanks for correcting ^^! Centaur271188 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Has been a fantastic contributor to the 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics page Mclarge90 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup Chart being "Unsourced" - Countering that Statement

Hello, I created a chart of rankings of each team in the 2018 World Cup. However, you claimed that the information were unsourced. I would like to pinpoint then, on how if you look at the World Cup historical standings on each of every national team profiles in Wikipedia, there shows the individual rankings of the team in the World Cup. The 2018 edition are all shown as well. If the sources are invalid, would you mind either getting rid of those stats as well, or put back the charts? Thank you. ⓈⓊⓅⓎ ⋮ 18:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Supykun: Please be more specific. What FIFA World Cup articles contain 'invalid' official rankings? As far as I know, those standings in FWC articles are all sourced by FIFA itself, which seems official and valid enough. Or do you mean some of them are incorrect? If yes, then please open discussions in the articles' talk pages. Please also be noticed that a consensus has been reached in 2018's talk page about not including final standing until FIFA provides it. Finally, I would not mind getting rid of anything invalid or incorrect, even if it is sourced. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiastadion

Hey, i would go with Hertha BSC personally. Kante4 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Centaur271188. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 FIFA World Cup statistics 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/2002 FIFA World Cup statistics 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. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2018 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2018 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record 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/2002 FIFA World Cup statistics 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. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

@Flix11 and Sakiv:... for being with me today. Whoa, 3 CAF and 16 AFC matches. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and conquer

With the 10 September matches coming soon, we are subject to update 26 matches across Afro-Asia in just 6 hours. How about this, you will do the CAF and I the AFC part. I also suggest to update infobox on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification on the base of that grouping, thus I will update the AFC part and you the CAF. How is that? Should invite @Sakiv: as well? Cheers. – Flix11 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11: Well, OK :) By the way, I am using Google to check match times. At 20:00 (my time, maybe yours as well, I know you are from Indonesia but I am not sure which island, most of Indonesians live in UTC+7 zone right?) we have 3 matches start simultaneously, then at 21:00, 22:00, 23:00, 23:30 and 00:00 11 Sep. Before 8:00 p.m. it will be more relaxing, matches will start and finish one by one. Feel free to update CAF if you have time, because you and Sakiv are generally faster and better in updating match details than I, if I know you guys are online, I will mainly take care of other sections and pages. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P/S @Flix11: If I have nothing to do in CAF, I may also look for something to do in AFC, e.g. infobox, goalscorers... Hopefully everything goes smoothly :) Centaur271188 (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hey, sorry about that. Not sure what happened, wrong tap open i guess. Kante4 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About your move on Raúl García (footballer, born 1986)

So, I saw that you reverted my move on Raúl García (footballer, born 1986) back to [[Raúl García (footballer)]] because he is the "most notable" footballer named "Raúl García". While yes, he may be the most known footballer named Raúl García, he isn't the most notable person named Raúl García, which is why the name has its own disambiguation page and he is disambiguated as a "footballer" in order to make him distinct from other people named "Raúl García". "Raúl García (footballer)" could refer to any of those footballers in that disambiguation page. See Talk:Fernandinho (footballer, born May 1985)#Requested move 25 September 2019 if you don't understand my viewpoint. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KingSkyLord: I am surprised that "Fernandinho" move request was declined - at least we should keep the "Fernandinho (footballer)" title. To me, it is a strong WP:PrimaryTopic case, most readers mean Fernando Luiz Roza when they search Fernandinho here or on Google. In June, I also supported a move request for Alisson (another clear primary topic case), which was approved quite easily. Similarly, I think it is reasonable enough to have "Raúl García (footballer)" title.
Anyway, I do not want a lengthy dispute about this issue, so I will not revert if you insist. However, many Raúl García wikilinks should be taken care of, hopefully by a bot and/or someone - not me, sorry, honestly I do not agree with this move, and I have had little free time recently. Centaur271188 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EasterEgg?

@Mattythewhite: Hi, I cannot understand why placing the link for that particular season, in the season's infobox, violates Easter rule. It seems reasonable and transparent enough to me. Have we ever had any discussions at WikiProject Football about this? Moreover, I think your way of linking is somewhat MOS:OVERLINK. In each season article of a tournament, usually the lead section, we have a link to its main article already. Centaur271188 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Range block?

@Flix11, S.A. Julio, Sakiv, and The Replicator: Hi all, long time no see :) Since the beginning of this month, many football articles have been being vandalised consistently by some user(s) using IPv6 addresses 2001:ee0:49... (the remaining part is varied). Has anyone reported these incidents to WP:AIV, and/or requested administrators for a range block? Is it possible to find all IP addresses which have the same initial, and all edits made by them? I know most of those edits have been reverted already, but some low-importance articles and less visible changes may be overlooked. Centaur271188 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some have been blocked, but only individual IPs not the whole range. Flix11 (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11, Govnery, S.A. Julio, Sakiv, SuperJew, The Replicator, Tomrtn, and Wira rhea: Guys, after a few days with no incidents, the vandalism is back.[1][2] I really want to know how we can request a range block. Centaur271188 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might try reporting them to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Explain the situation, provide these links with examples of vandalism. In that case, they are likely to invite a checkuser to prove that those IPs are in fact related. Govnery (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2020–21 Athletic Bilbao season ‎, you may be blocked from editing. Sakiv (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: Is this how you assume good faith? I was the one who retreated and accepted your very soon edit some time ago [3][4] Centaur271188 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You think you own those articles? Only then did I add the reports and not even the uncertain schedule. We now have COVID pandemic and at the time there was nothing. Don't distract us. You need to respond on the article's talkpage. This warning is for reverting a non-disruptive edit. --Sakiv (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: I own nothing here. I am just doing what we have been doing all the time. And what about calling me a vandal? Centaur271188 (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith towards you, and I know you want to keep the article the way it was last season, but we're different, and we can combine our efforts to develop the article instead of looking at trivial things. I have started a discussion on this page to reach a conclusion that satisfies everyone.--Sakiv (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: You can change anything you like, but please listen to my point before reverting. For example, I think 'Current squad' section is redundant (eventually we would repeat those information when we do 'Statistics' section), that is why I removed it. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the current squad section and replace it with the Players statistics section at the top, where do we put the goalscorers sub-section? Stats are usually at the end of the article, not the top.--Sakiv (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: The statistics table has 'Goal' columns already. By the way, what are the Premiership articles which you mentioned in Athletic page? I would like to see and ping some editors who are working on them, to at least let them know about the discussion in WikiProject Football. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Manchester City F.C. season, 2020–21 Leicester City F.C. season and others.--Sakiv (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Cups

Please stop reverting my edits. By doing that, you remove the information that Arsenal vs. Benfica will be played in a new venue, and something else with new sources! Make the comparison between my edits and yours and you will notice it! Wikilinks must be used for "Matches" section.--Island92 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want that wikilinks appear, you should remove them only from "Notes" section. I suggest waiting the talk anyway! Island92 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Ah, sorry about Arsenal v Benfica note, I overlooked it. However, please understand that I disagree with overlinks, not links. We already linked all these teams once, what is the point of linking again in such proximity? Would you rather type "Benfica" or "[[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]"? Centaur271188 (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explain it better so that you can understand correctly. As I said previously, in this section all the wikilinks must be left per the consistency of the page, therefore S.L. Benfica, Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., etc, all twice. In this other section they can be removed (I mean those about the team name and the stadiums), but I'd rather wait a response which can be given by users who are more expert than me into the new talk you opened.--Island92 (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: You are just repeating 'consistency' and 'per previous seasons', which I saw in your edit summary. Do I understand correctly? Such 'consistency' is against wp:overlink and makes no senses to me. This new way is easier and more efficient, I think. Again: we already linked all these teams once, what is the point of linking again in such proximity? Would you rather type "Benfica" or "[[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]"? Centaur271188 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Consistency' and 'per previous seasons' they both mean per what was decided and made in the following pages:

All these pages have been made with the same style, including those about the UEFA Champions League knockout phase. Why are you doing differently for the 2020–21 edition about linking just once the team name? Who decided it? Is it a special edition of the tournament for doing it? Why are we changing things which haven't been changed for years?--Island92 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Would you revert me if I go to those articles and apply this change, just to achieve your 'consistency'? Again: such consistency is from the time we just link everything, without questioning why we should. Per wp:overlink, this is a bad habit. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my personal consistency. Yes, I would, because of what was decided in the past. I'm just following things that were decided in the past by users more expert than me. This is a huge change and I believe it would be better if you discussed it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. If you get a consensus from other expert users, you can decide to link all the teams just once.--Island92 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User @Ayomaju:, who has known these pages for years, today this same, by reverting your edit.--Island92 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain me why in UEFA Euro 2020 Group F team are so close to each other and linked twice while for Champions/Europa League do we have to do differently?--Island92 (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: For national teams, we use Template:Fb, not just wikilinks. You can click the 'Edit' button and see for yourself before asking :) To be fair, those links are not VERY close to each other. Please compare them with UEFA articles. Centaur271188 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain me why in this section Ferencváros is linked twice with both teams so close to each other while for Champions/Europa League do we have to do differently?--Island92 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Then see my Athletic Bilbao season articles, in that same section I do not link those teams AT ALL (I think the links in the table above seem sufficient) 2015–16 Athletic Bilbao season. Policy is not followed everywhere, OK. Now do you want to fix it or just keep breaking it? Centaur271188 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will not change anything because the entire page works good enough as it appears, as well as those for Champions/Europa League.--Island92 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: It can be better. If you do not want to fix it, just stay aside and do not prevent me doing that. Centaur271188 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you cannot decide on your own what to bring in those European pages. For huge changes, you need a consensus before changing the whole page. Things have been updated in a determinate way for years, why suddenly changing them now? I can tell you that you're going to have a big edit war with several IPs if you link the teams just once. For sure, it will happen to do. Try to avoid it and trust me about keeping the current format if you don't want to get troubles. It is just a reliable advice I'm giving you.--Island92 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Because it is more efficient and easier. And I think I timed carefully (a whole week before this matchday) to do this work - which I consider not so drastic (nearly everybody in WikiProject Football proved me right, this is a real wp:overlink case, and such change is not that huge) - and avoid turbulence as much as possible. Thanks to you mainly, my plan failed. OK, I will temporarily retreat from current season's articles. But please do not revert me in previous seasons' ones. Centaur271188 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done and Done. Talk ended for me. It lastes too much, honestly. But ready to face several edit wars with IP's who are going to add again the double wikilinks from now.--Island92 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:overlink in soccer articles

Hey Centaur, Category:Articles with too many wikilinks is one of my pet projects so I'm happy to help with some of the WP:FOOTY articles that fall into that category. I don't know if you have a method of going through them, but let me know if there are any competitions or strings of years that I can help with. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alyo: Wow, thanks for telling me. I would appreciate a lot if you can help :) As Mediocre Legacy said in WikiProject talk, this kind of wp:overlink occurs everywhere. I promised him (just guessing) to take care of UEFA articles, and I am doing that. It would be great if somebody can deal with other continental tournaments. We should prioritise Copa Libertadores and AFC Champions League, which probably are the most watched ones outside Europe; begin with the most recent season, then go backwards. CAF-CONCACAF-OFC, Sudamericana and AFC Cup could wait if we are short of manpower. Such planning seems far enough for now, I do not even know how fast we can finish this cleanup alone :) Centaur271188 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, that's the list I was looking for. Thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 03:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round‎

Why do you always add my username in the edit summary when you edit after me? You could have updated the result without referring to me.--Sakiv (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: Firstly, do not overstate it :) I think I have mentioned you in my edit summary only twice, tonight and once in the goalscorer module. Secondly, it is just a simple reminder. Of course I could have done it without telling you to update the score in that group table, but it would be better if you had done it correctly in the first place, wouldn't it? Just like the previous time in goalscorer module, I thought it would be better for all of us if you could describe specifically what match you had just updated. If you feel somewhat annoyed with my reminder, then sorry, I will stop it from now. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:)

I hope we can edit articles together and work in harmony StarryNightSky11^(talk)^(cont) 23:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]