User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2019/April

Edit war at Adrien Silva

Your recent editing history at Article 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Per your discussion above, and also the conversation at the main football talk page, it has been made clear that you do not have consensus for the information that you are trying to include and your justifications have not carried any weight. You have been reverted by multiple editors and I am hoping that you cease this needless edit war, as while I am assuming good faith I can't help but feel you are now being purposely disruptive. Koncorde (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for what may have seemed unclear. I was paraphrasing as I was not looking at the sentence in question. The line in question states "Template won 99 caps with the Templationia national team". Which is past tense. It has never been used in my 13+ years editing football articles to insert current statistics into a players lede. By the same token we do not summarise goals scored, games played in league appearances, or talk about things in the current tense as much as possible barring the current club being played for. We talk in neutral and passive terms because the intro is intended for clear, long term, consistent information to be conveyed that summarises the body in a concise manner. Having a lede that requires constant updating and amending, even if only incrementing international appearances, is a redundancy.

In contrast a retired players caps becomes a permanent fact, although even then it is still seen as a largely redundant feature to include it in the lede in a lot of cases, with it largely seen by those editing to only be of particular significance for players that met certain thresholds. Koncorde (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Thanks for getting in touch. I appreciate the apology.

The template article as a whole, including the lead and infobox, clearly relates to an active player. I would be surprised if anyone could look at it and think otherwise.

"It has never been used..." is obviously not true. I have been editing football articles for 14 years, and have seen it used quite frequently. For example, I just looked at two articles of players off the top of my head - Harry Kane and Luka Modric. It is included in Kane's article, but not Modric's. So actually, we do often summarise these things.

Your opinions on what the lead should be are interesting but, as far as I'm aware, not reflected in policy. Per WP:MOSLEAD, the intro is intended as a summary of the article. I can't find anything in policy which refers to "long term, consistent information", "passive information", an article being a "data repository", or anything similar. Biographical articles routinely include information which will need to be updated and can become out of date - an actor has won 4 Academy Awards, a politician has won 5 general elections, whatever. It is also done in other sports. It happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it. --hippo43 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivo Gonçalves

Another editorial run-in, I was only trying to vary in writing as "stint" is 100% correct (or seems to be, as the Google search I pasted in the edit summary shows). I reverted you yesterday, but reverted myself today so we have "spells" written twice as you wish.

Initially I only wanted to update this subject's infobox (and will continue to do that solely from now on, as initially promised), but then I thought i'd source his goal (always controversial without sources, for a goalkeeper) and write a few other words (two paragraphs to be exact, a total of four lines). Apparently, I incurred in a few mistakes there as well even though the English seemed accurate.

Attentively, sorry for the inconvenience (and since I have to believe you when you say this is strictly technical and not personal, please do continue with the monitoring) and have a nice week --Quite A Character (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The English wasn't all accurate, that's why I corrected it. The phrases I changed are not used like that in English.

'Stint' is not 100% correct. It is a question of tone - it is not enough just to find it used in some sources, you need to understand the type of source. Correct for a newspaper article is not the same as correct for an encyclopedia. The same as 'netted'. If you don't want to have 'spells' repeated, you could just write 'twice' instead? hippo43 (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the usage (or "not usage") of "net" has finally hit home, I get it is very informal, I will not use it again. I just thought "stint" was equal to "spell" in its encyclopedical approach. Regarding your suggestion, if we wrote "twice" in Mr. Gonçalves' article reads might wonder ""Twice" what?", so it's best to leave it the way you first had it. --Quite A Character (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If you wrote something like "Player X had spells with Real Madrid, Barnsley (twice) and Chelsea" the meaning is clear. I don't care either way. Use it if you want. hippo43 (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I see now. Thanks for the clarification. --Quite A Character (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

2009 UEFA Champions League Final

Can you please explain your changes on the article talk page so we can have a discussion rather than a slanging match via edit summaries? – PeeJay 05:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I think I explained the rationale clearly in my edit summaries. If you want to discuss it at the article talk page, I will contribute, but I don't really think it's necessary.

The article is about the final, not the competition. Man Utd's tv pool money has nothing to do with the final. So making the point that "despite losing, Man Utd got more prize money" is untrue and original research - that point doesn't appear in the source, which doesn't mention "despite" or anything similar, and doesn't mention prize money. We could equally make the point that, despite not making it to the final, Bayern received more revenue overall than Barcelona, but that also has nothing to to with prize money for the final, and would also be OR.

FWIW, I have not engaged in any kind of 'slanging match' in edit summaries. The only comment that is addressed to another editor was yours ("Barcelona won the tournament and didn't claim the most prize money (or whatever you want to call it); ").

On the subject of betting, I think the whole section is utterly trivial, and it's based on a single source which is basically a compilation of press releases, but I'm happy to leave it if others find it valuable. --hippo43 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)