User talk:Martinklavier

Seasons section on Luton Town F.C. page

Hi Martin,

I noticed you have added in a section on the 10 most recent seasons on the LTFC article - the article in question is a Featured Article which means it's been determined by Wikipedia's editors as being, among other things, very well balanced between Luton's past and present. The 10 recent seasons makes the article, in my view, look perhaps a bit too focused on the club's recent history. In additon, all the information can be found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Luton_Town_F.C._seasons), which means there is little need to duplicate. Really appreciate you making the edits and being interested in the club, but I think the part you added in does not necessarily belong in the article. If you are happy, do you think it best if we remove it?

Haruman215 (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your message. I know that this section dublicates already existing List, of course, i made a link to it in front of the table. And it was one of the my reasons of making a section - to make a more obvious place to put this link. You know, it is not so easy to find it just in one place in all the article, expecially if you are inexperienced wikiuser. So i decided to put a short table in the article of club, of course i've chosen for it the most recent seasons. As you can see i already created such tables for some other less significant Football Conference clubs. The other reason was my wish to improve the lists of seasons (and creating it if necessary), to make it a little bit more informative. I already added column with attendances, done a separation of league goals of top scorers from overall quantity, and i am about to add some other info, for example overall ranking team in english league system for every season (maybe you have some other ideas?) and put it in the complete list, but my first aim was to make such a short tables. Finally, i respect your opinion and your desire to keep this Featured Article as good as possible, but i dont think such a short section can make it worse, after all, there are a plenty of dublicating in it in similar situations - for example section about rivalry - there is a separate article about it and link to it in template, but we keep the most important info in article anyway and i think thats right - if you are interested you'll read the full article, if not you'll get only common knowledge Martinklavier (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin. My concern is that it is very focused on the recent history. Any attempt to balance this with going back further into the club's season history will just make the article too long and unwieldy. Perhaps the best option (as you hint) is to combine your detailed table with the one in the 'List of Luton Town F.C. seasons' article? The link to this article can then sit under the History heading at the beginning of the main body of the article. What do you think? Haruman215 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Erm, let me get you opinion, what do you call 'combine'? How would it look like? Martinklavier (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The other one thing - i'd like to make tables more informative, as i told you earlier, so in my humble opinion naming only top scorer isnt enough to observe past season, it would be better to list all the players who were a part of the first squad in every season to show their significance. What do you think about it and dont you have an idea how to put it in wikitable form? Martinklavier (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would be possible to list all players from a season in an easy to read wikitable format - look here for an example of matchday squads (not the same as you suggest, but similar) in a table that, in my view, just does not work as it's too cluttered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Brentford_F.C._season#Matchday_Squads Now consider what a similar wikitable would look like by adding in all players for every LTFC season and it becomes far too unwieldy. To answer your first question, a combined table would be the information and style you have put into the 10 seasons section, such as average attendance and an easier to read format, into this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Luton_Town_F.C._seasons

Southern League

Yes, cool, I'm glad you sent a message; I was going to write to you anyway. I update all the Southern / Isthmian / Western / Wessex / Combined Counties League articles, and I work on past seasons as well. You're doing very good work on those articles, but there are a couple of things to watch for.

If there are a lot of new clubs in a division, it's cool to have separate sections for them, like you have been doing. But if there are only a few, maybe less than ten, it's much simpler to put them in one section, in alphabetical order. For people who don't know much about all the promotion and relegation, it can be hard to understand if there are so many sections. Plus this is how it is for most season articles at this level and below. So like here, I've made the Premier Division simple, and left your sections for the lower divisions, because there are so many new clubs.

In infoboxes, everything is separated by commas, not <br> line breaks.

Also, sometimes it's difficult to know whether to put "the" before a league or not. I guess English is not your first language, so it's cool. I can always correct something if you have it wrong. But it's always the Premier Division, and the Southern League; but ~~the~~ Southern League Division One. It's complicated, but don't worry about it too much. If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know and we can figure things out together. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind which page we use, I'm happy to post here if you like. Like you say, the Football League is much, much simpler because there are only two feeder divisions for each division. At non-league level, there might be five or six or more. If we have separate sections, sometimes there is only one team in each section, and it looks a bit silly, and too long. Also, each article is about the current season, and it's not totally important where each club came from last season - just a simple note is good enough. Otherwise you start to repeat everything, and the articles can get very long. One point to remember is that with all the tables, results grids, infoboxes etc - for some people these pages can take a long time to load (even for me), so it's good to keep things simple.

About the tags / commas, OK, we can use your way. I think the rules say to use commas, but I agree that breaking up the name of the team is not great.

"Promotion / relegation to" - uses no tense (they're not verbs) and they represent a zone in the table, during and after the season, regardless of which clubs finish in that zone. The "transferred" note represents a specific action taken by the English FA between seasons, regarding one club, so I think this is all OK. Cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously after a season has ended, it's easy to show where a club has been promoted or relegated, but while the season is being played, it's impossible to know. So you just have a promotion zone with the possible destination leagues. During the season we can't have "promoted" – that's impossible because the promotion has not happened yet, so it must say "promotion". After the season it doesn't matter at all. "Promotion" and "promoted" are exactly the same thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean there. There's no real point in changing from "promotion" to "promoted" because they mean exactly the same thing, and there are a hell of a lot that say "promotion" already. The infobox documentation does actually say "promotion". Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, everything you've done today has been great :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully professional league

Just so you know - Premier, Championship, League One and Two are considered notable on Wikipedia as fully professional leagues. You should not create season articles for clubs that do not play in these leagues unless they pass WP:GNG, but many do not and they will most probably be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i know, but i cant see the difference - if the clubs are considered as notable and has an articles, why the history of these clubs (in a form of such lists) woundnt be notable? is it better to put lists into the main article? i can agree when you argue like that with ordinary season articles like 2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season proposed for deletion now - thats probably redundant, but not here. There must be other rule, not WP:NSEASONS Martinklavier (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first few lines at WP:NSEASONS sums this up - "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory." JMHamo (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usually i start reading from the title, and i can see it called 'INDIVIDUAL seasons', so absolutely different subject, cant see why you keep on using it as an argument. Non of my articles never been about an individual season. Martinklavier (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isthmian League

Hi, no problem :) Yes, I will have a look at those soon and check the grammar. And yes, that's a common difficulty – the general rule is that "Arsenal were..." is British English, and "Arsenal was..." is American English. These articles use British English because they're a British subject. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen 2003–04 Isthmian League? The colours are not right and some of the formatting is wrong... I don't know the guy that did it. Is it on your list of articles to work on? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update this page later, after we'll clear everything what was wrong in the subsequent seasons articles. i'm a little confused about this 'the' rule, just as you said one year ago higher on this page, I missed 'the' in the cases like "Southern League Division One", but now looks like you adding it to those occasions. Martinklavier (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder if he can do anything with large empty space to the left of infoboxes on some articles (for example 2006-07 Southern Football League)? Martinklavier (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The 'the' rule is not an easy one. In general, we talk about the Conference, the Southern League, and the Premier Division. But with Division One, Division Two, Division One Midlands or whatever, the 'the' would be left out. I might have missed a couple of these as there are a lot to see. I might also have made a mistake or two – when I am looking at lots, it's easy to be "snowblind", if you know what I mean. I rearranged the formatting on the 2006–07 Southern League article, to fill the big gap by making the table longer and thinner. See how it looks on your screen and let me know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, that's better, looks like columns badly cooperate with infoboxes. Also I wanted to ask you what means sign

(argh, look at the edit page, don't know how to make it visible)? Martinklavier (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, yeah that sign makes a small vertical gap if there's a clash between an infobox and a league table. It pushes the table below the infobox, and just makes sure that the table isn't too narrow, squeezed in next to an infobox. Sometimes when more text is written, like you do, the clash is gone and the sign can be removed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next question. Should we exclude from the infoboxes all clubs resigned from the league, like you've done for Enfield in 2007? At the same time you've left Banstead resigned in 2006 and Abington resigned in 2005. Whats the criteria? Martinklavier (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, because these are not relegations. Some of these clubs only left the league because their ground was not good enough or whatever, and it's no reflection on their playing skills. They are explained enough in the tables so I don't think they should be in the "relegated" field in the infobox. I probably didn't notice Banstead and Abingdon, but they're the same as Enfield. I see you added "the" to a lot of mentions of Division One – as I said above: with Division One, Division Two, Division One Midlands or whatever, the 'the' would be left out. I know it's not easy to understand. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so, what should we do with "the Premier Division"? I thought it is equal to Division One according to 'the rule' and if we must use "the' before 'Premier Division', so we must use it before 'Division One' too. I thought that only with the name of the league - southern football league division one - there is no need to use 'the'... and they told me that English is the simlpiest language-) Martinklavier (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely "the Premier Division". I'd probably have to be an English university lecturer to explain why, so sorry about that! Nothing simple about English! It's about how it sounds when speaking English, and saying "the Division One" sounds all wrong. It's just not what an English person would say. Sometimes people talk about Division One as "the First Division", and that is correct – but not "the Division One". You can say "Division One" or "the First Division", but always only "the Premier Division" – we never, ever say "Division Premier". I guess it's something people learn via experience. Hard, I know! Don't worry if you make mistakes. I'm glad I learned English as a baby... Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-) i'll revert my 'the Division One' edits from the pages you already looked through. What do you think about changing preview for the Southern League articles to the one I've added here? I mean using the names of regions of England instead of strange combination of regions, areas and etc. used in the first sentence the main page of the league Martinklavier (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) And yes, that looks like a good idea to me. It's good to explain properly which regions are covered by the league. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you know if there are some kind of a list of maps, which may be used for pointing clubs locations? Martinklavier (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, I don't know of any list – maps are always a bit of a mystery to me. But some other season articles contain different maps. Which area are you looking for? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked just to know my options for now-) but if you'll look at NPL Division Ones - I guess it would be great to change existing map with more precise one, cause there are too much empty space in it and all the teams are in one corner Martinklavier (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

League Cup

Seems strange that it's not easy to find! I found some early results here [1] but I can't find any later ones yet. Maybe some of the club websites will hold archive of their cup results from last season, but it might need a bit of detective work to put it all together. If you need to find specific results I should be able to help you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, i've found it here, not sure how reliable is it, but that's much better than nothing. Going to create a section this evening.Martinklavier (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I am a member there ;) I actually looked on that site but I didn't expect to find the results in a thread on the message board. I'd say those results are pretty reliable – these guys are the non-league kings. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing - I just found out that there are a separate article about 12-13 season of Isthmian Cup, while all the other Cup seasons are included in the league articles, should we replace it with disambiguation or maybe do something else? Martinklavier (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cups had their own articles sometimes but we decided to merge them with the league season articles. This one has been forgotten, I think! It needs to be a redirect page, redirecting to the cup section of the league season article. Make sure all the info is already in the season article then replace all the text with a redirect, like this one [2]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Non-League seasons

Hello, thanks for the heads up. I will hopefully be the first person to keep all 24 conference club pages open by the end of the 2015/16 season. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isthmian League

Great work! These are complicated leagues sometimes and the club histories are also very complicated sometimes. I've fixed a couple of things – firstly the grey colour is only used for clubs that resign or fold during the season, not after. Usually the results are expunged as well. Second, a minor grammar point – when you resign, you can only resign from something. We never say we resign to something. We sometimes say we are resigned to something but that has a completely different meaning and it doesn't work in this case. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention and corrections. one minor remark - i guess, 01-02 season no teams were to relegate due to league reform, so Romford shouldnt be marked 'R'. Martinklavier (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today I finally ended this work!-) 15 seasons.. it was very wearsome. One more difficulty for a such leagues - different sources offer different results sometimes. At the moment i used only RSSSF, though. I would be pleased if you'll run through the 1980-2014 seasons to check me one more time Martinklavier (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Romford now; I will try and check. All those clubs that are marked as promoted – not sure they were technically promoted as they remained at the same level of the system. I'll try and check, and I'll check all the articles as you ask. Again, good work!! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually at those time the Second Division clubs were promoted one step up from 8th tier to regionalized 7th tier (and some of the Third Division clubs promoted two steps up and some - one) cause in distinction from 2003-04 reform there was no new divisions created higher than Isthmian league. Martinklavier (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing about the final league tables: isn't it better to convert all the texts from 'promotion or relegation' column to the past tense just like 'here' in all the seasons? Martinklavier (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will check that stuff as I go through them. You might be right, I'm not sure until I research it properly. Promoted / promotion, and relegated / relegation – it doesn't really matter. It means the same thing, so it's up to you entirely. Some of the other little changes I make might look strange or unnecessary to you – it's just that sometimes there are constructions that technically make sense but are never used in everyday English. I can always explain if you like. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your patience and consistency, you are really helping me to improve my level of English here. Martinklavier (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem :) You're doing a lot of good work here that would not otherwise be done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season

Hi, here's my feedback on the article:

There's a lot of stubby paragraphs, and this could be simply resolved by moving sentences together. For example, the lead could easily be turned into three paragraphs.
Some unnotable content: do readers need to know when pre-season friendlies were announced, and I'm not sure we need to know the exact date for every event.
"it was announced" or words to that effect appear frequently: it's completely redundant, we only need to inform readers about the events concerned.
There are images available of some of the players from this season, you could brighten the article up by including a few.
With regards the tables, I would advocate using the same format as those at the equivalent York and Birmingham articles.
I don't think there's any need for the "First team squad" section, as its content appears in the other tables.

If you can implement these I think this will be a strong candidate at GA. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: Thank you for your time. I've tried to fix most of the positions you've mentioned. As regards the tables (I guess you've meant match reports above all) I agree that this style is more suitable for an articles about cup competitions, championships etc., but I don't think it is inappropriate in a season articles as it covers more information without making the article bulky. So I'll try to nominate it in its current form, though I am really suspicious in broad coverage of a subject cause I used almost exclusively references to an official club websites.Martinklavier (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Odejayi

Hi, thanks for formatting and referencing the career stats table at Kayode Odejayi. However, I do have a few pointers: 1) divisions should be in single cells, for accessibility reasons 2) Template:fb team should not be used as a substitute for pipelinking and 3) colspan="2"|— should be used for competitions the player was not competing in or not eligible for, and not for competitions in which they weren't picked. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: thanks, but may you explain me the pipelinking problem more elaborately: when I can use this template and when I shouldn't.Martinklavier (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure when this template should be used, and in my near-10 years here I've never needed it. In fact, I only stumbled across it yesterday when I saw your edit. I've started a discussion at WP:FOOTY to find out more about it, but so far no one knows why it exists. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, strange thing. I used it because its the way shorter than typical link to a football club, though i understand now that it is not a good reason. But as you see, it is very widespread - thousands and thousands links. Some kind of bot is needed here. Martinklavier (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season

The article 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table templates

Yes, I noticed that too, I can't understand it. I checked the template history but I couldn't figure it out. I saw your edit to the SWPL season article and I've changed a few of the current seasons in the same way, but you're right, there are a lot that need changing. I think a bot could do it but I don't know how. Maybe ask at the football WikiProject? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Good news, thanks for letting me know. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Carlisle United Football Club into List of Carlisle United F.C. seasons. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season

The article 2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2014–15 Tranmere Rovers F.C. season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for league tables

Why? They're absolutely horrible to edit and a total inconvenience. Absolutely nothing good about them at all. Considering I did 100% of the table updates for the Southern and Isthmian Leagues last season, it might have been worth asking my opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was decided that the old form is deprecated, as you see, higher leagues using new style for 2-3 seasons already. Martinklavier (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Well, that's terrible. There's no way in hell I'm spending Saturday evenings and Tuesday/Wednesday nights struggling with that rubbish. There aren't even any links on the season page to edit the templates. Someone else might do it, I guess. Would you do the same for Step 5-6? If so, I'm not doing those either. Wikipedia progress = take something that works and make it worse. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If not me, someone else would do. You see, one league is done already by someone. By the way, there are links - letters V, T, E (view, talk, edit) near the word 'Team' in the table header. Martinklavier (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. Last season some tables were updated maybe once a month – totally useless. I can guarantee they won't be updated very quickly, because that's how it always goes. I see the letters now, very small. Anyway, more free time for me. You do good work by the way. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a fantastic amount of work, seriously, and you have every right to be disgruntled. Personally I (of course i have no such huge experience in live updating as you) found this templates quite convenient. I even done additional sandbox to see all the templates on one page. As I said, i was told here that old form is deprecated and should be replaced. I can comprehend that it is annoying, when you feel comfortable at work and someone else creates rule that makes you to readjust. I had an experience when my articles were sent to deletion for some weird reasons. Hope that you'll change your mind - i feel that templates not so bad as you are talking. Thanx for kind words, by the way. Cheers. Martinklavier (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. I agree with you that it is very frustrating when someone whom you've never met, and who has never commented on your work, dictates that you now have to do it in a completely different way. It's like George Orwell or something. Then there's you and me, and a few other people (and we are not paid of course), and we have to accept it. The thing is, I used to enjoy updating the tables, and I strongly suspect I would not enjoy it again. It's a lot of work, and if you don't enjoy it, it's impossible. We'll see. Thanks again, mate. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

As they're (indirectly) about you, just to make you aware of the two threads here. ‑ Iridescent 19:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 NWC template updates

Many thanks for bringing the NWC templates up to date while I was away for a couple of weeks! I particularly liked some of the additional changes you made, for example, adding Possible to the promotion statement against the leading team in the Premier Division. (Such an addition, of course, would also apply to the leading team in any of the fourteen step five divisions.) And of course it goes without saying that I approve of the punctuation correction to one sentence in the template instructions! I have not, however, gone along with your removal of the comment see criteria below; that is still relevant, as when when the template is displayed within the NWC season article, the criteria do appear immediately below the table.

I have, however, superseded your table updates with individual updates for each day on which matches were played in the last two weeks. This is not because I had any problem in the updates you made, but because it's been my intention to enable, at any future time, for anyone to be able to display the table as it was at any date during the season. I almost made it for the NWC articles for last season, but not quite.

Thanks, also, for the making the updates following the first rounds of NWC's two league cups. Drawoh46 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drawoh46: Thanks for a kind words and corrections. I'll copy promotion criteria to all other step 5 leagues. Martinklavier (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drawoh46: However, promotion criteria you posted relate to previous season. I guess it is just not published for an ongoing season yet. But we must update it. Martinklavier (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinklavier: The citation refers to the previous season, but the actual text which I put in the season article itself (listing the four criteria) has the updated dates relevant to the current season. The same criteria do apply this season (with appropriate modifications to the dates), but I haven't actually found any reference to which we can point.Drawoh46 (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drawoh46: Let me know once you'll find a link for a current season. Thanx in advance/ Martinklavier (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinklavier: Will do. Incidentally, I've converted the Eastern Counties article to use table templates now, and plan do some others shortly. Drawoh46 (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinklavier: A few more Step5/6 leagues now converted to using sports table template - West Midlands, Hellenic, Midlands, Spartan South Midlands, East Midlands, and Essex. But still not found any reference specifically referring to current season. Drawoh46 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinklavier: At last, five months later, I've found a link giving step 4 to step 5 promotion criteria, which does not explicitly refer to a season in the past. It's in the FA 2016–17 handbook, page 174, and is written in such a way that it applies to any season. The FA handbook can be found at the bottom of this page. (However, if the proposed restructure occurs for 2018–19, these criteria will not be applicable for the end of 2017–18.) Drawoh46 (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hi Martinklavier, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isthmian League

Hello Martin. I see you've been adding boilerplate text to all the Isthmian League seasons, describing it as "an English football competition featuring semi-professional and amateur clubs from London, East and South East England." However, in the early years the league only had amateur clubs, so this is inappropriate for the articles you've already added it to. Personally I'd recommend deleting the entire sentence as I'm not sure what it adds to the article and it seems jarring to use a present description of the league in historical season articles. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Hi! Thanx for your attention, I think that you're right, this sentence is excessive, so i'll substitute it with a shortest version i can imagine. I believe that it is better than no explanation at all, though. I'll repair all the articles in the same way shortly. Cheers, Martinklavier (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your latest edits, could you please improve the referencing you've been doing. For instance, on 1919 Isthmian League you've changed the FCHD reference from

"1919 Isthmian League Football Club History Database"

to

"FCHD tables archive for the Isthmian League fchd.info".

I don't know why you've done this because (a) "FCHD tables archive for the Isthmian League" isn't the title of the page being referenced and (b) the name of the source is the Football Club History Database. Similarly, the title of the RSSSF source is "England - Isthmian League" not "RSSSF tables archive for the Isthmian League".

Also, you have spelt sources ("sourses") wrong on all the articles and seem to have missed off the parameters |promoted= None |relegated= None for all the seasons where there were no changes, meaning there is an empty column at the end of the league tables. Number 5 7 13:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I dont get the last point about promotion/relegation. I feel that actually both of them are useless in that case, cause till the second division was created promotions and relegations couldnt happen in Isthmian League as there was no unified league system, so its quite senseless. Should I just leave those nones everywhere? Martinklavier (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the tables you've redone have an empty "Qualification or relegation" column in them for seasons where nothing happened (see e.g. here). I made a mistake above with regards to the parameters though – the one you're missing is done like this (note the last column has now disappeared). Number 5 7 14:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Get it, and what do you think about promotions/relegations in infoboxes? Martinklavier (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they shouldn't be included until it formally started happening. Number 5 7 14:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton F.C.

You have blanked the page. Do you mean that it should be deleted? If you want to write about the 19 century, please do.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: I meant that this redirect was incorrect. According to http://www.thefa.com club participated in 1890-91 FA Cup, while Clifton All Whites was formed in 1963. Not sure what should be done in such case. Also, I haven't enough information for creating new page. Martinklavier (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article intros

Hi Martin. Could you stop changing article introductions from (e.g.) "The 1951–52 Southern Football League season..." to "The 1951–52 season was...". Ideally the article title should be referenced in the first few words of the article. Cheers, Number 5 7 11:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Sure. I'll revert all the Southern League articles intros Martinklavier (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Bielkus

Ah, thanks for explaining, I've tweaked the article. Giant Snowman 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic League seasons

Hi, why are you removing the Division Two sections from these articles? Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: Hi! Firstly, because only three season articles had Division Two sections. Secondly, divisions Two are placed at 11th level, which is considered unnotable as the clubs playing there. I guess it is long-standing consensus. Also it was mainly reserves division. I'm going to create all the Hellenic League season articles as soon as i finish checking existing ones and divisions Two sections are not in my plans-). Martinklavier (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason to remove sourced information. These are articles about the league seasons, therefore if the season is notable enough for an article, it makes no sense to arbitrarily exclude part of it. Other league season articles have them, if someone has wanted to add them and the information is sourced. Level 11 leagues are not notable in their own right, so cannot exist as standalone articles, but it's fine to add those divisions to a notable league season article. It's fine if you don't want to include Division Two sections when you create Hellenic season articles, but if they exist and they are sourced, then they should stay. Don't forget all information must be sourced, and I see the Yorkshire League seasons (are they notable?) are all unsourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: How are the Hellenic League articles are sourced better than Yorkshire's? Sources are at the bottom of the divisions tables, as the league is defunct it doesnt has official website.Martinklavier (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see them now, my apologies. It was just that the reference sections are empty and that sort of jumps out at you. It might be worth putting the fchd reference in the reference section too, maybe? Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: Ok, i guess it is good idea. Talking about notability of the old league seasons i guess the rule is 'if the clubs were eligible for FA Cup, then the league they played is notable'. It suits current cut-off line at 10th level, which is the lowest level for the Cup.Martinklavier (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it suits the current cut-off, but that wasn't always the case. In the past, very small clubs could take part in the FA Cup, from small county leagues. But those leagues are not considered notable enough for league season articles. With the Hellenic League, the league is notable enough for a season article. Division Two is part of the league, so is relevant to the article. Notability criteria do not apply to parts of articles, only articles as a whole. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Counties League

Hi, in this edit you say certain clubs were demoted or resigned [3] - where is your source for this? Also why are you removing the FCHD source everywhere? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Actually i have no source, such edits based on club articles, for example RS Basingstoke F.C. says that "unable to develop their basic Whiteditch Playing Fields home they dropped out of the league" and Peppard F.C. also notes ground grading problems. Taking into account that Chiltonian League and Surrey County League were lower in the pyramid at this time I decided to change the verb.Martinklavier (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found some incorrect figures in fchd for example in 2003-04 season (cant remember, maybe some more errors in newly created articles..). Is nonleaguematters site less reliable than fchd? Should we provide both sources in such cases? Martinklavier (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it's good to include both sources, as these articles don't have many sources and some people like to complain. I don't think one is better than the other, but I would say include both and you can use figures from whichever you think is more accurate for that article.

I agree that those leagues were lower but I don't think the clubs were demoted. Demoted is basically the same as relegated, except it's usually used for clubs who don't finish in a relegation place. So the league can demote you for ground grading failure, or financial issues, even though you finish high up in the table. Unless we are sure the league actually demoted them, they just resigned. A club can't demote itself, just resign, or join a different league. From that statement about RS Basingstoke for example, it looks like they resigned. Peppard also. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Do you agree that the southern League/ northern league acted as tier 5 and the the top tier of non-League before 1979? (Before the Formation of the Alliance premier league) I’m having this debate on the football talk page, and two editors are saying that it wasn’t, without providing any evidence at all? I wasn’t sure what your thoughts were on this? Joseph1891 (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I rely mainly on [article] in this type of questions. And I dont think there may be any hard evidences. As there was no automatic promotions between league and non-league these years it is tough to say anything. Of course, Northern PL and Southern league were top of the non-league 1968-1979, but it is hard to draw the line when we can make such assumptions.Martinklavier (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks Joseph1891 (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Martinklavier, sorry to bother you.

So so sorry to bother you. I come back to you, as you actually seem friendly and also seem to agree with me on the history of non-league football before 1979. There's this one editor online who's actually extremely rude, and keeps saying stuff like: "The issue is, no-one agrees with you. Please stop flogging this dead horse and get one with something more productive." and is refusing to provide any evidence stating: "You can't prove a negative, so please stop asking me to." it seems really odd... maybe it's a big ask, but do you mind going on his talk page, and maybe sharing your view on non-league football before 1979 to him, just to show that I'm not alone on the matter? I don't know, that would be great. thanks. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not deep into discussion, what you want to prove and "noone agrees with you"?Martinklavier (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His name is: user: Number57 Joseph1891 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. An edit that you recently made to Marcus Dackers seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Giant Snowman 16:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Burton Albion F.C. into List of Burton Albion F.C. seasons. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zack Kotwica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zack Kotwica, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Kotwica until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Chester F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Chester F.C. players (25–99 appearances), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2023 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan South Midlands Football League

Hello, I noticed that you set up and maintain the wikipedia pages about the Spartan South Midlands Football League. Will you be adding the 23/24 League 2 information, like you have for past seasons?

2023–24 Spartan South Midlands Football League - Wikipedia

Will you start a page for the 24/25 season?

I see that the main page also needs updating for the new season.

Spartan South Midlands Football League - Wikipedia

Let me know if I can be any help. Sparkytoes (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkytoes: Hello, i can do it, but not earlier than nearest weekend. Feel free to do it yourself, though. Cheers!Martinklavier (talk) 21:19, 12 August 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) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]