User talk:J man708

Talk Page Archives

License tagging for File:Kit body Melbourne City FFA Cup 2019.png

Thanks for uploading File:Kit body Melbourne City FFA Cup 2019.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Premier Leagues SA Player of the Year

Hey Man! Are you still kicking around on Wiki?
just become a bit more active again. I've been looking into NPL Players of the Year and I've come into some trouble with SA – so thought you're just the man to talk to.
For some reason they were giving out the "Sergio Melta Medal" (which they keep saying is the "Player of the Year") but then for a lot of seasons they were also giving out a second "Player of the Year" usually sponsored by some company (e.g. Marcellina or Triple M). I'm gathering that the Sergio Melta Medal is the most prestigious one but have you got any idea what this second medal is about? Fan Medal? Expert medal? (and Sergio is the players player?) Hope that makes sense. And I hope your doing really well! How's the ticker been going?
—Eccy89 (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey boss! The ticker's doing alright! Can't complain! Hahaha. As for the medals... I'm not 100% sure. The Sergio Melta one you've (obviously) got completely correct. As for the others, it might be an Expert's choice one. Have the winners of the two medals overlapped at any time? Also, it could be an Under 23 one? I'll ask around and see what I can find out, but unfortunately my contacts are a lot more in the realm of the amateur league, rather than the NPL. - J man708 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J. That's great to hear mate!

Looking into it more, I found a quote talking about coaches votes - so I guess that's it. But it just seems so unnecessary to have TWO player's of the year. Funnily enough, not only did the winners NOT overlap, it seems that the ones that won the random (coaches'?) award were the ones that had more of a pro career (e.g. Elvis Kamsoba). I have been trying to add the awards nights to the season articles, in the hope of doing this (List of National Premier Leagues NSW Men's honours) across all NPL federations.

Also was contemplating creating individual award articles (e.g. Robbie Slater Award - Player of the Grand Final Match) but I'm not sure its notable enough? — Eccy89 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they wouldn't be notable enough for an article of their own, but adding them alongside the champions listing for the NPL SA on that page would be the way to go. Also, another couple of awards those others could be are top State League 1/State League 2 players or top goalscorer or something? Again, I'm not too sure... - J man708 (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume the top State Leagues wouldn't be notable enough as I'd imagine most players wouldn't be notable enough to have there own page, which is where I think the "Robbie Slater Award" also falls down cos players are generally notable for other reasons not their performance in and NPL Grand Final.

I had flirted with the idea of doing a page like this: User:Eccy89/National Premier Leagues Player of the Year (unfinished obvs) and perhaps something similar for GF Player of the Match, that way they are all grouped together. And that is more to take pressure off the National Premier Leagues main article page (though I guess it could be added there?).

Also, just to be clear, were you saying that a "List of NPL [state fed] Player of the Grand Final Match" article wouldn't be notable enough or were you saying the aforementioned List of National Premier Leagues NSW Men's honours would also not be notable? — Eccy89 (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they would be notable, but I'm not really much of a deletionist on here, so I really couldn't tell you. Unfortunately, some people can't seem to differentiate a semi-professional state league article and an amateur league one... Honestly, the best bet I've found is to stash something away within your own subpages and then release it when it's complete. It's where my "NPL before the NPL" are currently stashed away - 1995/1996/1997/1998/1999/2000/2001/2002/2003/2004/2005/2006/2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012. This gives you the chance to smash as much as you can out, upgrade it to a higher quality listing and basically have an area where you can find sources which add to the article. Sorry that I can't give a more definitive answer, because I think they're kinda all just deemed notable on a case-by-case basis. - J man708 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So when you were finished with the articles you created a new article and didn't MOVE the user page to a finished article page? Also, I think they are only differentiating between a fully professional and a non fully professional league, right? You would argue that a semi-professional state league is notable though? — Eccy89 (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite? I haven't made any of those live articles on Wikipedia... The reason behind this is that I made the lion's share of the Greenlandic Football Championship season articles and I was never completely happy with what I had done to improve them. I dunno, I guess I see those state leagues as something somewhat finished, but something that I can't finish, as I can't quite put my finger on what's missing.

So, your fully professional leagues are always deemed notable in some self-fulfilling way. I think the idea is that players in fully professional leagues are notable by the assumed coverage on them. Clubs can be from the tier down from that, as enough information is out there on semi-professional competitions and is quite easily accessable. I think beyond that, amateur leagues themselves are deemed notable enough to have a page about the league as a whole and whether this contains a table of champion clubs basically is defined by how trustworthy the source is.

For strictly Australian articles, I'd like to think the information made accessible by the late Alan Morley allows some of these lower leagues to actually have a fighting chance of being deemed notable on here. For international club stuff, I've always quite liked using League Octopus' notability test as a way to define what's what. I'm just rambling at this point. Hahaha - J man708 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah lot to unpack there, haha.

re: List of National Premier Leagues NSW Men's honours do you think i should merge this page into National Premier Leagues NSW?? I'm close to finishing a similar page for NPL South Australia too. My plan is to integrate them into the template:National Premier Leagues so that you can have quick access to each federations honour roll (prem/champ/POTY/Grand Final POTM etc.)

I didnt know that the socceraust creator had passed, I used to frequent that website a little while back. That's sad to hear.

I understand about the not feeling a page is fully finished. I created this a while back, but wasn't quite sure where it should go: User:Eccy89/List of National Premier Leagues NSW clubs - Eccy89 (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky to say, (sorry to give non-direct responses!). Some people might have an issue with it being WP:CRUFT, but some see the usage of it. A major argument for the inclusion of it is that the NSW leagues existed before the national league and being the largest state by population, could be argued to hold some form of defacto national championship in the early years, which seems to allow it to pass notability needs and whatnot. Personally? I think the page is handy, but it could be condensed into a single table showing the years running downward and the various pieces of info within columns. I took the liberty of giving this a crack in an edit on the page (which I reverted back to your previous edit immediately) - personally I think these types of tables kinda lower the feeling of it dragging on a bit (especially if you added in the info of the NSW State League back in the day, if you can find it!). My advice to you in short would be to add some of those tables into one, as long term, the article is a lot more condensed, with the same info.

Honestly, I'm saddened by Alan's passing. His work continues to make my edits on here insanely easy. I do wish I had sent him a message of thanks, but I'd like to think that his wife has kept the pages up and running in his memory. I can't imagine the amount of time and dedication he would've had for that site. I honestly would love it if the FA had a way of honouring his dedication to the sport. - J man708 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I used the template of structure from List of A-League Men honours with the idea of it being homogeneous (a manual of style, if you will). I do like your argument/suggestion for it to stay condensed but as per your edit it also looked too cluttered (especially on this new narrow default format that wikipedia has moved to). Perhaps something more like columns of Prem / Champ / Club champ / Fair play might work. I'm not sure about the individual awards though. There seems to be too many categories to make a condensed table viable. (Unless it's in two groups, POTY/POTGF/GKOTY/golden boot AND coach/ref/goal of the year? OR still one group with 1. omitting the player's club OR 2. putting player's club on a second line?) Which all options top me sound sub-optimal or more of a compromise. I'll keep thinking and let this grow organically. Thanks for the advice. — Eccy89 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No probs! Additionally, you could always try and extend the years column to take in multiple rows, with some light background colouring? I did this on the OFC Champions League page.

PS - The new Wiki layout is dogshit. I changed mine immediately back in the "Preferences" link. - J man708 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm yes. that is very interesting; could spread it over two rows (how I did the awards for 2015 Football NSW season#Awards) but add some light background colouring. I'm now not as motivated to do it cos I'm torn on the layout and don't want to feel like I'm wasting time (or having to convert the NPL NSW to the new layout!).

Yes I really really did not like how they made the new layout soooo narrow and also immediately switched it back. However, as it's the new default then that's how the average Joe is going to view it, so I decided to spend a bit more time using it to see the differences. It's still much worse but it's more manageable than I initially thought. — Eccy89 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, It seems socceraust.co.uk is now down. i didn't collect all of the information and i don't think it was saved anywhere else. do you know what happens to the links on wikipedia that would now be dead? —Eccy89 (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shit! That's not good... I honestly wondered about the longevity of that site after Alan Morley's passing... Unfortunate as hell... I'd just use what you can from The Wayback Machine, tbh. I doubt it has catalogued all of it however... - J man708 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ahhh the wayback machine. I couldn't remember the name of it. I was hoping something like this would work.

ahah! so this is when we need to cite web with dead link status. do we need to go back and change reference links to previously used sourced material? how do we know where it's been used? — Eccy89 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we gotta avoid WP:Link rot. I checked with a sample year of 1966 (England’s World Cup year) and South Australia and it has never been archived, so it’s bad news for us, it seems… Just makes you appreciate Alan Morley’s work a lot more, really… J man708 (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:'-( yep. is there a quick way of being able to find out where socceraust sources were used? it seems like that might be a complicated task. —

Eccy89 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah man. As a private website, he wasn’t restricted to the same sourcing rules as we are. From memory he used all sorts of sources, with obscure ones like hand books and match day leaflets. - J man708 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at RSSSF, maybe? Although I doubt that’s as in depth. - J man708 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking my example year into account of 1966. RSSSF has this… - J man708 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry man. I actually meant where socceraust was used as a source on wikipedia - as we need to change them to archived dead links. i'm assuming this isn't possible, so just update as we come across them I suppose.

Interestingly I've found a wicked source that has uploaded old year books [1] Although, I'm not sure how you cite it as they aren't url addresses - they link to google drive. — Eccy89 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eccy89: Sorry man! Totally missed this response! You absolutely can source them! I don't know Wikipedia's exact referencing when it comes to books (I can tell you about APA 7, though...). But yeah, they 100% can be used! Great find, btw! - J man708 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you URL them, you get a notification that google drive/wordpress/other self published things may not be appropriate. As this is just a photocopy of an original book it shouldn't matter too much anyway. I ended up just using the reference without the URL though in 1958 NSW Federation of Soccer Clubs season. Also, SOCCERAUST is BACK ONLINE!!! :-) Eccy89 (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you’ve done them correctly. At least for my studies, if you’ve used it as a reference and it’s on a different website to who actually owns/owned it, you just place an “Accessed at WEBSITE on September 7.” Also, I’m on my phone currently, but I’m getting messages that SoccerAust isn’t found. Are you sure it’s up, or did you click the Wayback machine link by accident? I hope it’s up, that would be awesome if it were! - J man708 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haha. yeah I'm sure its not through wayback! just went to the usual page on both chrome and safari and on a laptop and a phone. it's alive (at least in my world) haha. Eccy89 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Bale

I have reverted your recent edit again, as it is not in accordance with the discussion at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 158#Gareth Bale as a "player" in 2023? The infobox “instructions” say that the club career relates to the period when a player is under contract with that club, while the country career relates to the actual appearances for that country. Bale last played for Wales in 2022, but his contact with Los Angeles FC was terminated in (January) 2023.

How other language Wikpedias deal with this is irrelevant.

Best wishes Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not a consensus and you know that. Also, pretty sure I’m aware of that topic, seeing as I was the fucking OP. - J man708 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with consensus, it’s WP policy. And watch your filthy language! Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP policy to show that, I'm pretty sure it's not actually something that has been explicitly written about. If you give a shit about WP policy, maybe read up on WP:Edit War? - J man708 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier and Oman

What part of WP:VERIFY means you don't need to add a source for this? It is WP:OR to say that that match was the exact point that Oman were eliminated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:CALC means basic mathematics are suddenly WP:OR? - J man708 (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a simple calculation to work out exactly when they were eliminated. And every other cricket artixle cites things like this, so it's ridiculous not to do it here. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need a scientific calculator to understand that two teams with 3 wins cannot be overtaken by a team with 0 wins, who has 2 games left. It’s ridiculous to call that anything but a simple calculation. - J man708 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sounds WP:COMMONSENSE to me. --SuperJew (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need the results table at after every single match to determine the exact point in which they were eliminated. Or just find a source for it, which would be the normal Wikipedia way of actually doing things. I'm not arguing Oman being out is not a simple calculation, but it's not a simple calculation to work out when they were eliminated. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were eliminated the second the last Dutch wicket fell and the win officially was Sri Lanka's. Also, for the record, if you cite the information, that's fine. The reason that I deleted the "Citation Needed" stamp was that citation isn't needed for that information to be listed. It's not Original Research and it doesn't require citation, as it's a mathematical equation. If you find a source that says that they were eliminated at that point and wish to cite that, fine. But, I'm telling you that it doesn't REQUIRE a source, thus the "Citation Needed" stamp was incorrect. - J man708 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit sumaries/minor edits

Hi J man708. I've seen that you recently put back Melbourne to the F1 season articles. I think in future when making such edits (ie where there is/was a controversy) it would be best to put an edit summary (and certainly don't mark it as minor). It's not that I disagree with your edits, just that I think it's important to be transparent. It's my opinion, in fact, that the reason it took so long for the first reverts was because the edits were marked as minor and had a very generic edit summary, and were performed by a longstanding/recognised editor. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You used rollback to undo a good faith edit of mine. Do not do it again or I will be bringing administrator attention to it. Thank you. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 19:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it was a good faith misclick instead of an Undo. As for your threat, go right ahead. - J man708 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback policy contains instructions on what to do if an accidental use of rollback occurs. Please revise to avoid future incidents. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a misclick. Not something that I noticed until you brought it up. Clearly there's no lingering effects caused it. If there are, as I said, feel free to bring them up with an admin. - J man708 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to notice, as future incidents can cause discord among other editors whose good faith edits may be reverted. You should pay more attention in the future, lest this becomes a pattern. Does not matter if there are any lingering effects, it is a violation of the rollback policy and using it in an edit war where you ignored the BRD process is not appropriate. Hope you can learn. Regards, X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's literally no way for this to be undone since the article has been edited since. By the time you'd brought this to my attention nothing more could be done to rectify this. As I stated, if you're unhappy with this, feel free to hit the admins up. - J man708 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you have read this thread clearly, the original post was not a request for remedial action, it was advice for the future. You are not getting the point. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK. - J man708 (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An essay on disruptive editing not pertinent to this discussion. All you had to say originally was sorry/oops, won't happen again. Hope you can become better after this

. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 22:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming my talk page. - J man708 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello, I'm Annh07. I noticed that you recently removed content from FIFA World Cup records and statistics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Annh07 (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Alexander Robertson (footballer, born 2003), you may be blocked from editing. Giant Snowman 09:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, get a grip. Deleting something that appeared unsourced isn't vandalism, genius. Additionally, you've failed to WP:AGF. I expect an admin of all people to know this. - J man708 (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Australia Cup

@J man708 Hello, I'm just curious as to why you keep changing the table of the route to final section into a single joint table of both sides. I feel it is better and makes more sense if it was just one table for Sydney FC and another for Brisbane Roar. JC Kotisow (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it matches the other season articles. These tables being linked allow for ease of comparison between the two club’s pathways. The information about their qualification isn’t long enough to warrant the need for two tables. Additionally, using two tables wouldn’t work for the older articles which contain less in-depth information as to the clubs’ roads to the final. - J man708 (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 I don't know, I just think it's better if it is under the sections of the respective clubs because you are not comparing their pathways, you are just listing/stating it if that makes sense. I believe older articles are irrelevant due to the fact that they contain less information and people don't really try and state the facts when writing them and honestly, I hate the joint-table, its too big. JC Kotisow (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with new Wikipedians, right there in a nutshell - "older articles are irrelevant". What complete and utter horseshit.

"People don't really try and state the facts when writing them" - What, these articles weren't being updated daily when the seasons they were in were being played? No, not at all. We just threw whatever together and said "Fuck it" about keeping it accurate.

Additionally, the individual tables are broken on mobile, as the size renders the parallel text near-on unreadable. - J man708 (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 Relax, I added a section for the joint table. Also, you don't need to sound aggressive to get your point across, I understand what you mean by relevancy but I am just saying in the case for the Australia Cup final articles. JC Kotisow (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section you added is redundant. "Route to the Final" and "Pathway" are the same thing.

You gotta understand, I'm well past the end of my tether when it comes to things like this. I've been doing this for over a decade and every year or so, you get someone who comes in and decides to bring about changes to like three articles, to which they fight tooth and nail for. Then, they disappear but continue to gatekeep the three articles they wanted changes to.

There's nothing wrong with keeping each article uniform. Either have sweeping changes to all the articles, or don't change them at all. These people who come along and push for these changes only want them to change the article that they read (ie, the current season one) and don't give a shit about keeping it uniform with the other seasons, which would either mean that someone (aka, me) would have to change all the articles to something that makes no sense to appease one person, or that you get involved in an edit war with someone who doesn't understand the need for things to stay uniform. Sorry if it comes across as angry, but again, it happens every fucking year. - J man708 (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 I fully understand what you are saying especially if someone has done it for as long as you have. In terms of uniform I think makes perfect sense although it would take some serious time and effort to expand every past article on the final. The only change I think is necessary to the article (2023 final) is to move the table to the bottom of the section for it to look organised but that about it. Can you also explain why you remove the last paragraph on the background section? JC Kotisow (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to explain. I'm under the belief that these tables are shown either above the paragraphs written about their routes to the final, or at very least alongside. There's countless examples of such tables being placed alongside (2019 U.S. Open Cup final, 2019 FA Cup final, etc.). I'm sure you've noticed that these themselves are as you'd prefer seeing them (alongside their club's information).

Whilst this is the norm, it unfortunately caused the earlier FFA Cup articles to become significantly longer, looking incredibly out of place with large blocks of white space underneath the single sentences written about their route to the final, alongside their tables. If we were to have a significantly lengthened prose about their route to the final, then it would definitely defeat the need to hide this blank space.

In short? I'm not saying these tables need to be clumped together (although, we would need to find a fix to the tables breaking the mobile pages), but we would need significantly more prose information to accompany their individual tables, in order to not show ridiculous lengths of white article filler space. Effectively, using a single table is the lesser of two evils for the time being. - J man708 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - If you're happy to write out enough information for these articles to warrant having individual tables, which could have the text wrap alongside them, by all means do. I certainly would encourage that. I just don't want someone else's changes to be forced onto me to do, when I don't agree with them.

This is single handedly the reason why the 2023 Australia Cup qualifier articles look like absolute fucking ass. I've made a stand against editing it because I disagree with the changes made to it. - J man708 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 Haha, yeah I do agree that article need some tweaking but I'm not sure about your stand against editing, I'll even help you fix the article if you plan on editing it. I'm sorry, as well, for wasting your time on replying to me but thanks for clarifying on the table thing and the information thing too. JC Kotisow (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about my stand against the Australia Cup article? The whole article is incomplete and it's clear that nobody will fix it until I do.

You can see my reasoning behind my stand here, if you're interested. I appreciate you allowing me to vent about these things, btw. Sorry for being painful earlier, but honestly, I'm so far onto the path of being a WikiSenior, that it's not funny. - J man708 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 All good, people need to vent at times especially when they stress. To be honest, I probs would've argued back out of spite but that would've made you more mad. I would like to fix the 2023 articles, I really do, but I don't know where to start. Is it alright if I ask you questions from time to time? JC Kotisow (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I would've probably done that myself ten years back. Hahaha. Ask questions? Absolutely! More than happy to help. Another person that is pretty handy with issues like this is User:SuperJew, who he and I actually had difficulty with early on, but I think we've both allowed things to be bygones and whatnot... Although, he is a Collingwood supporter, so he is naturally a tosser. - J man708 (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 Fair enough and thanks, I'll be sure to ask you and superjew (what a name) questions if I'm stuck. It's pre late rn but you have a good weekend. Cheers, JC Kotisow (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He lives in Israel and shit. Like, it's a proper name for him, even if it comes across as an odd choice! I'll tell you a quick story before you go. The FFA Cup articles from a few seasons ago (maybe like 2016?)... We had the listing of all the teams from each state federation, but the final club numbers listed by the FFA were two off (like having Victoria have 200 teams, NSW have 250 teams, but the FFA claimed they had 448 teams). Anyway, @Matilda Maniac: and I went through each federation and had to manually comb through every obscure club to find the two who had been listed by their state federations, but had pulled out before their first rounds, which created byes in place of their fixtures. It honestly was a massive pain in the ass. This is the sorta shit you'll find by doing the scores and updating the 2023 Australia Cup prelim article. I guarantee you right now, the numbers will be off by like 2 or 3 somewhere and it will be a nightmare to find out what has happened, as all the information doesn't exist! - J man708 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 Damn, people do not give you credit for the work you do. You have my respects forever for that. I will probs work a whole day or so on the 2023 Aus Cup preliminary article maybe more than a day but I'm 17, I got the time. Anyway cheers for that, JC Kotisow (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it! I just wish I had the time that I had years back again! - J man708 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yup we're having a grand time here in Israel rn 🥲

anyways, be happy to help what I can. I'm quite busy these days IRL (maybe you've noticed my editing has been down - and also what I do I feel guilty haha), but will try to answer and help out --SuperJew (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Cup preliminary round

@J man708 Hey man, I'm starting to fix the 2023 Australia Cup preliminary rounds, starting with the first round. I realised that Queensland's teams are placed in the first round but I'm unsure since checking from this link [2] if I should place them by date? And also, in the "format section" it says that "133 Victorian clubs from level 7 and below entered this stage." but no mention of Queensland clubs, should I also change that so it matches the games played in the first round? JC Kotisow (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a former "major editor" on these Australia Cup preliminary round articles, over ten years the same as oldman708, so I'm glad someone else is interested in editing to improve the current one. I put in some time at the start and sporadically, haven't had the time or desire this year, as I am constantly travelling (current in Wetar Island of all places), but have managed to go to some of the preliminary round matches in Perth. Happier now to watch the actual football more than the article ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matilda Maniac That's good to hear, I'd also rather watch football matches than writing long ass articles but it's a hobby and it can give info to people who are interested. Anyway, have fun travelling bro. JC Kotisow (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the exact thing we’d do to order them was to place the fixtures in order of how they were listed in the draw video. In saying that, I don’t think it really matters now that it’s so far beyond all of the matches taking place. Also, I’m quite surprised that Indiana Jones over here isn’t in Africa somewhere. I think this might be the first time I can recall you being on a different continent! - Old man708 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@J man708 Haha yeah but in regards to the format, I'm looking at the Queensland results and its fucking my head in. Looking at the link, should I just fill in Round 3 and up only? Maybe remove the Queensland match sections in Round 1 and 2 also because it does not match with the number of fixtures in the match tables? JC Kotisow (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other way around. Fill in all the match details, and then retally the number of fixtures (the latter is a calculation not WP:OR). Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's tempting to delete them, but yeah - 100% with Tildawg. The numbers that don't equate will 99.9% be caused by teams withdrawing between registration end date and the first draw. - J man708 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones LOL

This year have been in Eritrea, Cote d'Ivoire (twice), Mali, Ghana, and now Indonesia (currently in Java), with probable forthcoming trips to Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, Scotland, France. Occasionally even Australia ! No real time for dedicated chunks of Wikipedia editing anymore. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so frequently in Eritrea? What is specifically unique about their geology? - J man708 (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have had 2 important clients there over the past decade. One is Bisha Mine, zinc and copper, formerly run by Nevsun Resources, and the other is a small gold mine in the north of the country called Koka (Chinese-run). I have been to Eritrea 12 times in 12 years, and it is a fascinating place with a fascinating recent history, culminating in the Eritrean War of Independence which finished in 1991. I have spent over 5 months of my life there, more than any country except for Australia. Each time I have been there its been on a business visa, but i would love to go back there one day as a tourist, and go to places i cannot on a business visa, especially the Danakil Desert and climb some of the mountains on the border with Djibouti, and Massawa port and try to get out to the Dahlak Archipelago which is a very pristine part of the planet. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the sunny hot Philippines! You cannot argue against inconsistency unless your name is GiantSnowman or Jimbo Wales. I have been accused of WP:VANDALISM and WP:NOTHERE for edit changes that conform to the MOS. No win situation. I do a bit more WP:GNOME work when I'm fed up with ~~soccer~~ ahem, football-related articles; you get more thanks fixing references or notes in random articles, and you learn a lot along the way from reading many of those articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:GHFA Spirit FC logo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

As a long-standing editor I should not need to warn you that edit summaries like this are completely unacceptable and will not be tolerated on this site — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t delete things written on talk pages by other users, unless it’s clearly vandalism. Every other season article’s talk page contains this information, so when this info is needlessly deleted? Yeah, responses like mine are to be expected. - J man708 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you have not shown any acknowledgement that this is unacceptable, I have blocked your account for 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, deleting talk page information is now completely acceptable? Alright, good to know. - J man708 (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is your issue because Jman used "fucking" and "dick"? Because if so, he's Aussie and that's just how we talk. It's not that he's not being civil, it's that Aussies have 0 Policitcal Correctness (Fluffy has a great standup piece about it).

I also would like to hear if you think WikiShovel's edit is legitimate. Information on draft page doesn't have a requirement to be sourced while it's in draftspace. --SuperJew (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t bother, SJ. Admins here are waaaaaay too inconsistent. - J man708 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not with any particular words but because we expect editors to collaborate and be respectful to each other. I would be happy to discuss WikiShovel's edit in a different thread on my talk page, but it is not related to the block because frankly nothing would have excused that outburst. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the issue? This would not have happened if not for the reverting of the information. Naturally nothing has been mentioned to the party which reverted this. It's ridiculous. Blocking me literally does nothing here. - J man708 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you expect (editors to collaborate and be respectful to each other), I hope you've blocked WikiShovel, since wholesale deletion of other editors' work, especially while it's still in progress (with unreferenced tag and on a draft page!) is not working collaborately and not being respectful to others. --SuperJew (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a response to this? Because I didn't acknowledge your message, I get blocked. Seems rather petty, especially when the offending message doesn't contain a personal attack, nor harassment - the reason stated.

"In extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings." - Seems like what I said does not contain these reasons for blocking and that the decision to block was not based on this, but a kneejerk response. - J man708 (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Can I have a response to this? - J man708 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to engage with this line of questioning because I believe you are attempting to justify your actions, whereas what you should be doing is reflecting on your own conduct and acknowledging that there is no justification. I did of course review the edits of both editors and found nothing problematic with those of WikiShovel. If you still believe there is something serious that I have missed, you can bring it up in a separate thread and not try to use it to justify your own actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking what did I do that contained the reasons listed for the block. Your reasons listed don't appear to correlate with what I was banned for. - J man708 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm under the impression that removing anything other than vandalism from a talk page is indeed "problematic". I'm asking for clarification on these. - J man708 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last Straw

I hope this thread was not your last straw for editing at Wikipedia. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tildawg, it certainly did not helped the cause. The fact that this place has so much bureaucracy renders it no longer enjoyable for me to create, sadly. - J man708 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was just about to ask you to research the total number of entrants at 2024 Australia Cup preliminary rounds which I think is out by 2. When has that ever happened before). Hope you are doing well in your life in Adelaide outside of WP ! Matilda Maniac (talk)

Yeah, that'll go on the backburner for now. I'm sure one of the other people who vote for sweeping football changes amid the status quo can pull their weight for a change and do it. - J man708 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at 2024 Australia Cup preliminary rounds and helping fix the wrong entrant numbers. Theres still 1 out somewhere. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the overall number is wrong. The FFA usually gets it wrong by 1 or 2. - J man708 (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 2024 OFC Men's Nations Cup Group A, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not edit the match report parameter into a direct link. It should be a reference per WP:LINKROT Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? What type of absolute crap is this?

Firstly, by NOT utilising the Report function of these football infoboxes, we break the MOS. How about instead of changing it just here, you push for a mass change that edits similar articles like the Euro 24 articles which (surprise, surprise) utilise this same function and link to UEFA's own internal match summaries.

"Please do not edit the match report parameter into a direct link." - Then edit it to show the link like just about everybody else does, with a link to an archived version which will not fall foul of linkrot. BTW, Linkrot will not occur during the tournament, so undoing my edits is nothing more than a dick move.

My question to you is why is this an unacceptable edit, but the previous versions of the OFC Nations Cup which use the same type of URL coding are acceptable (even though they're most susceptible to linkrot than the current tournament's pages)?

If anyone is wondering why I hardly edit Wikipedia anymore, it's bureaucratic idiocy like this which is the exact reason. - J man708 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See these discussions for consensus.

[3], [4], [5] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not answering anything I asked. - J man708 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does using the report function of the infobox make it susceptible to linkrot, as opposed to literally using its function? If we move the links to the archived version, I'm totally for that. But adding it as a citation after the Report function is incredibly pointless.
- J man708 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. I have not updated previous ones because I don't have time to do that. If you did read the first link I sent, it shows that a bot has been created for the same reasons I mentioned. So, there is no reason for them not to follow the format. The bot will convert those into references. So, yes, there will be a mass change. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then, does that not break the MOS by having some do things one way and some do it the other? - J man708 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not reasonable for changes to be implemented all at once. If it makes you happy, I can go through and edit all prior editions of the OFC Nations Cup Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Rome wasn't built in a day, but you're talking literally tens of thousands of seasonal football articles using the Report function and very few using this new one. As I said earlier, I'm all for lowering our chances of linkrot, but by ignoring the function of the Report part of the infobox in favour of a regularly cited link (which links to the same place), it literally serves no purpose, surely?

By the way, a conversation involving about 3 people won't change that people use the Report function as opposed to a citation link. Please, can you explain to me the reasoning why it's a better choice? I'm genuinely curious and do not see how it would be better to make sweeping changes which frankly appear to do nothing at all, just cause us to break MOS. - J man708 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland explains it well with this:

"As I've said on the talk page of the Champions League article, per WP:CITE and WP:LINKROT I've change bare URLs to citations. Further to that explanation, per WP:CITEVAR: If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs ... then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely. I have changed one page to meet Wikipedia policy. Just because it is the only one done that way, does not mean it is wrong. Similarly, just because numerous other pages are done a different way, doesn't mean they are right." Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is NOT all or even most citations within the article, it's like a dozen links to match reports, which even on a small page like the OFC Nations Cup, are outnumbered by regular links and will continue to be as more information is added to the article.

Additionally, because these changes match a Wikipedia policy (which, there are tons of conflicting policies out there, I gotta say!), doesn't mean that it matches the MOS! The MOS has been used literally since the Football Template infobox was created back years ago, again, tens of thousands of articles. Feels kinda "can't see the forest for the trees"-ish, here.

I fail to see how bare URLs which link to the same place as the citations are better, when inevitably they can be replaced by archived links, which solves the linkrot issue. If you want to push for a sweeping change to avoid linkrot, this is the way to go, not changing the reports to citations, as that maintains the chance of linkrot.

I mean, why have the Report function at all, if you're going to ignore it? There's so many things wrong with what is going on here, not the very least that nobody will abide by it on the tens of thousands of other articles out there.
- J man708 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything else to say. I don't wish to have an edit war and will wait until the bot is functional. You can make a post about this on WikiProject Football if you want Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is actually poor form to start making such edits in advance of a BOT that is going to perform this task, once created. It will just create unnecessarily these exact kinds of arguments. Once the BOT is functional, which I understand that it is not yet, it will just happen and people will get used to it (and not argue with the BOT). It hurts nothing to leave the edits in for the time being. Imagine if you started doing this in the middle of a World Cup or CONMEBOL competition! @Yoblyblob: Wait for the BOT. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I totally agree with MM here and such changes really don't need to be done during an active tournament Yoblyblob. Also, if we're talking about such mass changes, which can be confusing to an editor who doesn't follow WT:FOOTY religiously, it is preferable to do it using a functional bot first, before editors start implementing it individually.

Regarding the policy of the change, I would assume in general the advantage of an in-line citation over a bare link (assuming we're not using an archived link for either which is the best way to prevent linkrot) is that it provides more information which can be used to find the source or a similar source to it. However in this case there is hardly any advantage as the information in the citation can easily be found in the link itself. The disadvantage however is that in-line citations for every match creates a large cumbersome references section at the end of the article.

Lastly, I would say that the way Yoblyblob currently implemented it (not their "creation" if I understand correctly), is not very intuitive to the reader and not really correct. The citation to a match report does not support the word "Report", but rather all the info in the footballbox. A better place would be to have it after the scoreline, in my opinin and even then it seems to me as if it's supporting only part of the information instead of all of it. --SuperJew (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Yoblyblob, I do believe these OFC pages were created using citations rather than links so changing something to change it back with a bot is a bit pointless. The report parameter in the football box template has allowed us to easily link to but not cite sources which, in some articles, are the only source of the information within it. It's a fundamental Wikipedia policy that these are cited and appear in the list of references so I'm glad to hear that there is progress on a bot to help with this. I agree with SuperJew re- use of a plain text Report, perhaps writing Source similar to the way the Sports Table Module does would be more appropriate? That should clarify that the citation is the source for the full match information. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is the advantage of having an in-line citation for a match instead of a bare url link? (assuming the majority of cases where it's a standard match report such as on the UEFA site or on Soccerway (as opposed to a detailed news article)) --SuperJew (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely because it's being used as a source of information so it should appear in the list of references at the bottom per WP:CITE. Citing sources also means that a bot will automatically archive it via Wayback Machine. It isn't always updated immediately in the article that an archived copy of the source is available but it means the next person or bot to come along can do so with greater ease. Don't get me wrong, having the Report link there is a good start. This is just about building on that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's starting to make more sense now. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks for the clarity. The bot and automation of archiving is a good thing indeed. As I said earlier though, I do think it needs to be presented in a more intuitive way for the average reader. Would having a bare url + inline citation make sense in any way? --SuperJew (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yeah. I personally think it would be a little redundant but if it helps readers, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Something like Report^[1] or did you have something else in mind? Seeing that written down, it looks a bit odd actually so there might be a better solution. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest its time to move (components of) this conversation back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for further discussion to a wider audience. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no offense, but I'm sick of the alerts. - J man708 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:A-League markets under consideration

Template:A-League markets under consideration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2005 World Series of Poker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russ Hamilton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1996 Australian Super Touring Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 National Premier Leagues‎‎

Why generate a new table for NSW, when there was already one there as a Template ? Why not spend your valuable time updating other parts of the article that are still missing, e.g. Northen NSW or Queensland? Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to colour match the pre-existing tables and create a standard where either “One” or “1” is used in the league names, but not both. - J man708 (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Then I suggest you also edit Template:2024 National Premier Leagues NSW table for consistency. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]