Jump to content

User talk:S.A. Julio/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edits to List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes have been seen as vandalism and have been reverted. I've read through WP:SPOILER and I realize that just because something is a spoiler doesn't mean that it should be reverted -- however, it didn't say anything about EXCESSIVE spoilers. Let's not reveal too much about Mr. E here -- I understand you probably live in a different area of the world where Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated is already airing Episode 23/24 or something like that, but that doesn't mean you can spoil the ending of the season for those of us who are only up to about Episode 18 or so...let alone for those who haven't even seen the show.

Edits like this are exactly the reason the page is semi-protected in the first place -- please refrain from making such edits or you may be blocked from editing. Please try to reach consensus with other editors on the article's talk page before making such controversial edits. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, and I'll try my best to answer.

Thank you. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits such as those you have recently made to List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes. If you continue to make such edits you may be blocked from editing. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 00:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Wii (Game Series) Logos 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wii (Game Series) Logos 1.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wii (Game Series) Logos.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wii (Game Series) Logos.jpg. 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 the "Edit" tab at the top of the 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) 14:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated

Welcome to Wikipedia. You're recent edits of the DVD releases on the Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated page must have a reliable source and since you have not produced any it has been reverted. You can't add unreleased DVD's without a source as changes could be made before the release of said DVD. I am only letting you know this as to help you make proper edits in the future. As of now a semi-protection has been requested for the page. Please use the article's talk page as Black Yoshi has pointed out above for the same reason. I hope this will help you with future edits. If have any questions you are welcome to ask anyone on here for help. Have a good one. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the following conversation that is on my talk page: ::::<ref name=Airdate>{{cite web|url=http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/scooby-doo-mystery-incorporated/episodes-season-1/305448|title=Scooby-Doo: Mystery... Episodes |publisher=TV Guide|accessdate=2011-06-11}}</ref>
On every subsequent airdate copy and paste just
<ref name=Airdate/>
and you'll be set! Why would you want Canadian airdates for an American show? It should only have the American airdates. The 2nd page contains the other episodes. But hey, I'm headed to bed now, so if you have any more questions, I'll get to them when I wake up. CTJF83 09:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Teletoon's is a Canadian channel and they are posted on the page but no references are posted to show how and when they aired as proof, you know? JamesAlan1986 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You caught me before I left....There should only be American airdates, since it is an American show, correct? See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article#Broadcast for part of an explanation. CTJF83 09:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
OH! Well then I guess that page needs edited then and changed probably should have the unreleased episodes hidden then. I'll talk to someone and see if that can get changed. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

JamesAlan1986 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay fine go ahead break the rules I don't care anymore do as you please even if it's against wiki rules I sit here show you proof that I didn't make this up and instead of looking and reading it you do as you please. This is cause of edit wars and people who sit here and think they own pages, I'm sitting here being nice and trying to keep us all out of trouble but if you don't wanna follow the rules you are on your own. JamesAlan1986 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes -- the sneak peek...

Hello, Furtie. Your recent edits to List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes have nearly resulted in an edit war. I have been warned of such things in the past, so let us not continue. Instead, I wish to tell you that, in fact, the sneak peek which aired last April was the entire first episode, not just part of it. Therefore, since the episode effectively aired twice, both airdates should be included on the article.

And according to Template:Multipleissues, a short, concise list of templates is better than a long list of templates which are effectively saying the same thing. In this case, the Notfree and Copypaste are essentially saying the same thing (that some content is copied directly from another source), and the Tone and Unencyclopedic are saying the same thing (that some parts of the article are not conducive to a formal encyclopedia). I understand you see problems with the article, but that does not mean you can pile on templates. If you see a problem, fix it.

If you have any questions, please ask me or ask on the article's talk page and either myself or someone else will be glad to answer. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Black Yoshi as the main page says: A special sneak peek episode, which also serves as the pilot, was aired on April 5, 2010. I would refrain from removing this. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the only thing I can find on it it's a fan made thing but it was written on April 10, 2010. http://www.modacity.net/forums/entry.php?65-Scooby-Doo-Mystery-Incorporated-Sneak-Peak-Episode-quot-Review-quot. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 07:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Need your help.

We need to keep episodes 24-26 hidden until their air dates on the List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes cause someone is still vandalizing the Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated page and changing the status from Airing to Returning series with no reference and I believe they are doing it because of the episodes page. Please help me keep them hidden for now to minimize the vandalism on the main page. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 07:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Furtie fert ferts,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 08:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes‎

You can edit the summaries all you want and make them better that's cool. Just remember to keep episodes 25 and 26 hidden for now. Also I'm sorry but I didn't feel I had much choice you were talked to by Black Yoshi about the Sneak Peek and he told you were on the verge of causing an edit war and I even intervened to try to help you but you went and did it again not to add that you went and changed what I added for an unnecessary reason. It was fine with the table plus I did it to the What's New Scooby-Doo? page in hopes of stopping the vandalisim that had happened to the volume section on that page and when I was fixing it I happened to noticed it was vandalized the same way as the ones on Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated so I figured it'd be less tempting to who ever is vandalizing them if they were fixed into tables cause then you gotta do a lot more work to vandalize them. And I even pointed this out to you that you can't change things cause you feel like it that's considered owning a page. You can't just change it cause it doesn't look good and it wasn't hard to read. You could read it just fine. I'm sorry but you were warned and you haven't stopped. I hope you don't get blocked that's not what I'm wanting. I'm just wanting you talked to about it from someone higher then myself and Black Yoshi. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 09:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Google Chrome 2011 logo.svg and User:Secret Agent Julio/User Page/Userboxes

Please be aware that the use of non-free images, such as File:Google Chrome 2011 logo.svg, is not permitted on pages outside of the actual article namespace, such as User:Secret Agent Julio/User Page/Userboxes. This is prohibited by WP:NFCC #9, restrictions on the location of use of non-free items. Please do not restore this image or any other non-free image to that page, or any other non-article page. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I reverted the changes you made on "Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated" because a lot of what you did was unnecessary the season 1 section was fine where it was at and until the UK DVD is released it does not need to be removed. You assume good faith then assume the good faith that it was placed there for a reason. I talked to another user about it and the said the way I was going about it was a good idea. In case you are wondering it is right here. Please, in the future, discuss these changes before you do them so others can have input on them. Thank you. JamesAlan1986 (talk-contribs) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Sorry about that. Will discuss next time.

18:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article 4 World Trade Center) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Monty845 19:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Lego Super Heroes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lego Super Heroes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lego Super Heroes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Google Nexus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LTE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Hello. Why do you have seven alternate accounts? --Rschen7754 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Those are not mine. They are some of my family's. I do not want them to have their own user page. 03:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • But that is their decision to make, right? --Rschen7754 03:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Nope. 02:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
        • I am concerned that you are behind all of these accounts, and that you may use them to violate our policy on multiple accounts: WP:SOCK. --Rschen7754 02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
          • Hello. I am sorry. My son was in my Wikipedia account and posted these last messages without my knowledge. As of the matter of the multiple accounts, that seems like my son's doing also. I do not know what options there are to deal with this. Could we possibly close the accounts? That would seem logical. I removed the redirect to my account via the what links here tool. Some of them seemed like they were not actually accounts. It seems like the accounts that actually do exist have no contributions. Do you have any better ideas to resolve the situation? I apologize with the misunderstanding. Secret Agent Julio (Talk) 23:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
            • I can block them if you wish. However, please note that you are required to keep your account secure, and if anything like this happens again, this account will have to be blocked as well to protect the site. --Rschen7754 06:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
            • (Sorry for this belated post, as well). --Rschen7754 06:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
              • Do whatever action is necessary. Blocking the accounts seems like a good idea. Thank you. Sorry about the confusion; it will not happen again. Since you are an administrator, just a general question. Hypothetically, if I asked you to protect one of my user pages, could you do it? I saw it done on another account and it intrigued me.

Category:Beats Electronics

Category:Beats Electronics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center Question

how did you come to be an editor for Wikipedia? I have many questions about your references for WTC7.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TessMurdock (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  1. I do not see the relevance of the question pertaining to why I am an editor.
  2. What questions? I have made very few edits (four to be exact) on the page 7 World Trade Center, none of which involved any references. If you would like to discuss the references for 7 World Trade Center, please do that on its talk page.
  3. Next time, please leave a message on my user talk page, as I do not look at my user page. It is also common practice to use a user talk page.
  4. Also, please sign your posts.
    Thank you. SAJ (T) 08:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MythBusters (2013 season) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • hit his brakes, but these ripples quickly dissipated. A heavier traffic situation of twenty cars (which was very close to the saturation point of the course at the test speed of {{convert|20|mph|km/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

NCIS (franchise)

I understand what you're trying to achieve but some of the edits that you've been making are going to be problematic. We generally transclude "significant" amounts of content (series overview tables, multiple sentences etc), not single items such as episode counts and we generally only transclude once or twice per article, not multiple times. Edits such as this and this are, at best, completely out of the ordinary and unlikely to be understood by most editors. Since episode counts are updated weekly you're likely to see errors introduced weekly when somebody inadvertently removes the transclusion tags, which most editors do not understand. During the off-season, some well meaning editor will come along and remove the transclusion tags seeing no reason for them, especially by editors experienced in transclusion who see no need to transclude a single number. I was going to wait until you ad finished at NCIS (franchise) before discussing episode counts, but this is something that needs to be addressed now.

While I have your attention, I'd like to direct you to to MOS:ACRO and WP:OVERLINK. The first says that names be spelled out in the first instance while the second says not to link the names of major geographical features. This edit violates both of those. New Orleans is well known, even outside the United States, so doesn't need to be linked (WP:OVERLINK) and adding "LA" is just confusing. Per MOS:ACRO the acronym needs to be spelled out as U.S. state codes are not well know outside the United States. I actually thought it meant "New Orleans, Los Angeles" when I saw it and I'm bombarded with U.S. TV programs all the time. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I definitely see how that could become very problematic. It would mess up the franchise article if the transclusion tags were taken off. Thank you. Also, thank you for informing me on acronyms. I was not previously aware of this and I could understand why that could be confusing to many. I also understand the overlink issue. Thanks. SAJ (T) 19:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited America the Beautiful Quarters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glacier National Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MythBusters (2005 season) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • episode appearance of [[Scottie Chapman]] and final appearance of "Mythtern" Christine Chamberlain (Scottie Chapman later appeared in the [[List of MythBusters special episodes#Episode SP11 – "Young

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Shark Week

It actually doesn't belong in italics because its just a programming block. Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of multiple images

Tags have been placed on File:Kari byronatDragonCon3.jpg, File:Kari byronatDragonCon2.jpg, File:Kari byronatDragonCon4.jpg, File:Jamie Hyneman with Blue Angels.jpg and File:Kari Byron crop4.jpg requesting that they be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AussieLegend (✉) 10:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia:Categorization#Files/images, files hosted on commons should not be added to categories on Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NCIS: New Orleans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCIS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

Just a note that when splitting out an article as you've done for NCIS season 12, attribution has to be provided per WP:SPLIT. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans

Musdan77 has reverted all of our recent edits and removed quite a bit of content from NCIS: New Orleans. I reverted him but he has reverted again. I've warned him and asked him to discuss on the article's talk page, but I have to go out for a while so you may have to watch the article if you're going to be around. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay. Thanks for pointing that out. It is not a constructive edit, and he is not explaining himself well. I will keep an eye out. Seems odd since he has been in Wikipedia for some time, and seems to be a participant in wikiproject television. And sorry about late replies for the two other discussions on this page. I forgot to reply. Good day. SAJ (T) 03:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I've discussed on his talk page and he made some rather strange claims about what he was trying to do, including that he had restored edits that he clearly had not. I've made changes to the article that now make all three NCIS series articles similar in style and content. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of MythBusters cast members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Walking Dead. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Seinfeld template

Hi, I'm the one that modified the template. I think that the numbers are uncommon, not good to see and also useless. The old version was sort of standard. But I think that more people should discuss on this, don't you agree? Isn't there a Seinfeld project? --95.235.102.158 (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Numbers are definitely common identifying episodes! If I wanted to quickly find Season 7, Episode 17, this way would help me find it quick and easily. How is it "not good to see"? It is literally just its number in the season. It is not about if it looks pretty (and it seems just fine to me), it is about how helpful it is. And this is clearly more helpful. It is definitely not "useless" since it helps navigating and finding an episode if you do not know the title. Feel free to bring it up here. SAJ (T) 01:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season

If you want friendly matches in the article, see what you can get out of the sources that are already in the article. Sources should really be independent. Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. All of the sources were independent except two. These were hard to find, and since they came from an official source, I thought they would work. And with the organization, I thought it would make most sense not to repeat group stage and knockout phase twice. They could just have their own sections with all is the pertinent information. SAJ (T) 07:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There are already sources in the article forthe friendly matches. It would be better to use the reference names. Kingjeff (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm planning on adding a table for all the knockout rounds. Kingjeff (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of table? I had started designing one to go along with the rest of the tables in the article. See below.
Leg Date
Kick–off 		H/A Opponent Res.
F–A 		Att. Goalscorers and disciplined players Ref.
Bayern Munich Opponent
1 H F–A
2 A F–A
Aggregate 2-1 —
Note

Bold indicates away goals.

It nicely displays the aggregate along with bolding the away goals. SAJ (T) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My table is more like this.

Leg Date – KO Venue Opponent Res.
F–A 		Agg. score
F–A 		Att. Goalscorers and disciplined players Ref.
Bayern Munich Opponent
Round of 16
FL —
SL

Kingjeff (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Does the Round of 16 header need to be in the table though? Having section headings in the TOC would make navigation easier to each specific round. SAJ (T) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, because the header for each round will be in the table. Therefore it will not be needed as sections. Kingjeff (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand. But for people accessing the page to look at the table, it may be easier if they can click on a link in the TOC that goes directly to the Round of 16. Anyways, basically every other season page for football clubs separates it by round, including the previous Bayern Munich season.

But it's still broken down between group stage and round of 16. Kingjeff (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please take out the "Friendly fixtures and results" section. The table is incomplete. Kingjeff (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Secret Agent Julio, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

...And I thought I was jumpy!!

Talk about being fast on those Mythbusters edits! I've been trying to do that for over a month but have constantly been reverted by... your thanker in order to adhere to the calendar year! LOL!StevieB5175 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, some of that can seem a little odd, having to wait exactly until New Years. SAJ (T) 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FIFA 15, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stamford Bridge and Etihad Stadium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

List of clubs in the Bundesliga

There was a very good reason why the placings table in the List of clubs in the Bundesliga was split into two halves. A single table is far to wide to read, especially on mobile devices, but also on smaller screens. I prefer to go back to the old style for that reason but I'm happy to discuss it with you first. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. I see you point. Good day. SAJ (T) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I changed it back but kept your idea of linking the individual season places to the club's season article that you implemented for FC Bayern. I think it's a good one and should be applied to the other club's, where available. Calistemon (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for saving that part. I compiled a full list of season articles, but I do not have time right now to do it. I will hopefully be able to do it in the future. Here is a link. SAJ (T) 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Chromebook revert, no explanation

Please provide an explanation for this pure revert of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chromebook&diff=prev&oldid=644948534 See revert policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary Marchash (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Was not really a revert, it just did not seem necessary. Information on the choice of code name is not relevant. SAJ (T) 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you did not intend it as a revert, but if someone adds something and you remove it then the section is obviously reverted to its previous state. If codenames are not relevant, shouldn't you also remove the codename column also from the other table? Codenames are not relevant to everyone but they are relevant to anyone who cares about what is inside their product powering it. This type of people is using codenames as opposed to official product numbers (another column you might want to remove, too). The table you removed allowed near instant identification of which product generation most Chromebooks belong to, so I still think it's useful. Maybe you can suggest a better place, I don't mind if it's relegated to some bottom "techie" section as long as the information is there. Marchash (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not intend to revert it. I was trying to simplify the table for readers. SAJ (T) 21:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

It's not appropriate to address editors directly in edit summaries as you did on the 2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season article. While I agree with the statement, to discuss contributors rather than content is bordering on a personal attack. See WP:NPA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I probably should have just left a message on his talk page, but I was not trying to attack him. SAJ (T) 19:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season edit

This is a very inappropriate edit. I think the club season article should be closer to Bayern's season article. I don't use the football collapsible template because the manual of style, which is a guideline, on Scrolling lists and collapsible content states that "Scrolling lists, and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content..." The guidelines are "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus." Also, the fixtures and results table that I have in the article combined some subsections that you have. Also, just having a list of players is redundant. This is because there is a list for appearances and goals. There is also another list for cards shown to the players. So, we really don't need a third squad list that is only there doing nothing. If you feel we should add certain tables, templates, etc, that you included, then feel free to leave a message on my talk page and we can discuss if it's suitable and how to incorporate it. Also, I had to change the table for the knockout phase because the colour for draw was overlaping over second and third rows. Kingjeff (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014–15 SV Werder Bremen season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santiago Garcia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Football box collapsible

Hi Secret Agent Julio , you have recently made some edits to Template:Football box collapsible. One of the additions is to list certain articles (currently 147) in the non existend Category:Articles using football box collapsible parameter assistantreferees. This category now appears at the bottom of these articles as a red category. See 2012–13 in German football for an example, that is where i spotted it. Did you intend to do that? Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, most certainly not. I apologize for that, it was unintended. I thought the way I added it that we be so that it was hidden. I will remove it. The only reason I had added it to see how the parameter "assistantreferees" displayed if the national football association was displayed as well. It is not important whatsoever, so I did not create the category. Thanks for informing me. SAJ (T) 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No harm done, I just had trouble finding where it was coming from until somebody at the Village Pump pointed me in the right direction. Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Good, I am glad the problem was solved. SAJ (T) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DFB

Hey, not sure. The drawing order was Wolfsburg first so i assume they would be the "home team" but like i said, not 100% sure. Kante4 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks anyways. It does seem like that is how it is done. SAJ (T) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bundesliga matches template

Hi ,

I request you to comment on this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Germany_task_force#Updating_all_teams_season_matches.

--Rasulnrasul (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. SAJ (T) 21:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox football club season

Hello. I noticed you've made several changes to this recently, and listed some new parameters in the Usage section of the documentation, but haven't actually explained, either in the Parameters section or at the template talk page, what they're for. I wonder if you might do so. Personally, I'm a bit concerned about the "extra information" parameter – it's generally not a good idea to encourage users to add unspecified bits of information to infoboxes. Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, you've removed TemplateData from the documentation. It seems to me, looking at Wikipedia:TemplateData, that this isn't something we should be doing? Struway2 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I mostly added parameters that were already in the code, but were missing from the usage section. The only one that is currently there is updated, which is straightforward. The "extra information" parameter I added because it was in similar templates, like Template:Infobox football league season and Template:Infobox football tournament season. I had copied a section over, so it was still there. I promptly removed it. I ended up just giving all of the parameters an explanation just to be helpful. I thought that TemplateData was the same as the table explaining the parameters. I did not intend to delete helpful content. You can add it back, although it is very incomplete. SAJ (T) 22:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Penmiss

If you would kindly direct me to the pages that are using this template incorrectly, I'll gladly go through and fix them. – PeeJay 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry I have not gotten back to you sooner, I have been busy. I do not know exactly what articles, but it showed up when I used AWB. But I think that if people want to use it, let them. It is not that huge of a deal. It is a notable event in a match, but does not get recognized often. Obviously it will not be used that much, but those who want to should be able too. They already are doing that, and displaying the time outside of the template. Also, on the template for silver goal, I do not think having the time as alternate text is necessary. For screen readers, the time is already displayed. Also, the "st", "nd", and "rd" get messed up when in stoppage time. Also, you make football lineups, right? What background do you use? What about the kits? You said you use Inkscape? Thanks. SAJ (T) 17:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand your opinion, but I have to disagree about missed penalties being important events. The important events are the goals themselves, not missed penalties or any red/yellow cards. We need consistency across Wikipedia's football club season articles and currently we have about five different standards, most of which are far too detailed. If an event is truly notable, i.e. a missed penalty that would have won the game, it can be mentioned in prose; after all, every article should have some sort of prose account of events, not just a sea of tables of data. I agree with you about the silver goal alt text though, as I've seen it's been deprecated in all the other match event templates too. And yes, I do a few match graphics. The background comes from the original file, and I make the kit designs by hand based on a standard shirt shape. Do you need any making? I intend to do the FA Cup, Champions League and Europa League finals when they roll around, but other than that I've got a fairly free calendar. – PeeJay 19:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
For articles that also document cards, I would say that then a penalty missed would probably also be important. I personally do not add it though, seeing there can be some situations where it is hard to tell, and it would look weird if they put the rebound in (i.e. Messi soccer ball with red X 85, 85'). If you want to remove the penalty misses in matches from articles, I would just use AutoWikiBrowser. I do definitely agree the football club season articles are extremely inconsistent. There are lots of different styles used, and it can get pretty annoying. Even among seasons for the same club it can be inconsistent. Somehow, even in the same article it can be too. This article used three different styles for matches. And yeah, a lot of club season articles are just statistics, with no words. Another problem is that a lot of those articles will be started, but not finished. An editor will get inspired, and then realize the work it takes and will just stop. That leaves articles like this, which will probably never be updated. And for the match line ups, where did you get the original image from? It would probably be too much for me anyways. I just had this year's DFB-Pokal Final in mind, which starts an hour and a half after the FA Cup Final. Would you be able to do that? I really appreciate it. Thanks. SAJ (T) 20:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you're right that if we're setting the threshold for importance at the level of yellow cards, then a missed penalty might also meet that threshold. But in my opinion, I don't think even red cards are worth mentioning, let alone yellows, since they don't directly impact the scoreline. I think the club season article idea was originally opposed for the very reason you describe, i.e. people quickly losing interest, but I think they're worth doing, we just need to spend time at WT:FOOTY working out what the best format is and then enforcing the use of that format across all the articles (admittedly an onerous task given the thousands of articles that already exist and the thousands more that one day could exist). As for the line-up graphics, I can't remember where the original pitch map came from, but I just keep recycling old graphics to make new ones so I don't need to redo it every time. I can do one for the DFB-Pokal final, but I'd need a reliable source for the exact formation of both teams. Here I usually just go by what the host broadcaster shows on the screen immediately before kick-off. – PeeJay 21:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. So I had a few questions.
1. So I was wondering, what style should be used on club season articles for match reports? I mostly see the template football box collapsible used. Is that the best style? Currently I am trying to create consistency within German club season articles, which is hard. Every editor has their own style.
2. Also, do you have any knowledge about how to make kits? I wanted to make one, but the instructions given on Template:Football kit are not the best. I probably could not make it anyways, though, seeing I am bad with working with images.
3. What would you consider a reliable source for a lineup? For reports, I use Soccerway. Is this reliable? They always have the correct information, unlike the common alternative among German football club articles, Kicker.
4. Do you think you could help make some lineups? It would be really appreciated. I was hoping to do that for the Bundesliga relegation play-offs. Here are line-ups for the first leg and second leg.
5. And did you still want a list of articles that have the penmiss template for in-game penalties?
6. One last thing, if yellow cards and substitutions are just as notable as penalty misses, should not penalty misses be included in the expanded line-ups, like on that Bundesliga relegation play-off section? Why would this be unfavourable? Or should it just be included in a written summary?
Thanks for your help. SAJ (T) 21:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
1) Unfortunately, the denizens of WP:FOOTY have never managed to come up with a decision about what format to use for club season articles. I'm fond of keeping it simple and although I'm a bit biased, I have to say I prefer the style I implemented in the Manchester United season articles. But like I say, I'm biased.
2) I used to make kits myself, but I don't have Photoshop any more. The best way to do it, I think, is to make the entire kit as one image then split it up into its constituent elements. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure there's a graphics helpdesk here on Wikipedia that could help you out. User:VEO15 is also pretty adept at doing kits, though I can't speak for how busy he is.
3) For formations, I usually just stick with whatever the host broadcaster puts up before the game (or in the case of European matches, what UEFA publishes in their pre-match press kits). I don't have much experience with Soccerway, so I can't say whether I consider it reliable or not, but I think I would try to find other sources first.
4) I could possibly do those line-ups at some point, but this week is bad for me as I'm in the middle of uni exams and searching for a job. I'll give it a look next week if you can remind me closer to the time.
5) No, that's okay. I think such a large-scale change would need more of a discussion, I just personally think that use of the template is wrong.
6) I don't actually think penalty misses are as relevant as substitutions or red/yellow cards, it just happens that people seem to think they're worth including in the {{footballbox}} template, so I used it as a point of comparison. In the expanded match details, I think we should stick with only things that the referee would note in his notebook, i.e. cards and subs. – PeeJay 21:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Here I am. I do have a bit of free time on my hands so what can I do you with? VEOonefive 05:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh hey, thanks for the offer! I was hoping to create the third kit for Karlsruher SC, which can be seen here and partially here. They wore it during the Bundesliga relegation play-offs in the first leg. If you could do that, it would be greatly appreciated! SAJ (T) 12:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll get it sorted soon. VEOonefive 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Proper Name for Darmstadt 98

While I do not necessarily doubt your knowledge on how the club's name is represented colloquially, there has not been an instance where I have seen the club's name represented as anything but it's official title of SV Darmstadt 98, and that includes on the Bundesliga website and on Wikipedia as a whole. Could you possibly provide a source that states the common usage of Darmstadt 98 on the SV Darmstadt 98 page itself? I think that would clear up any confusion - User:Jay eyemtalk 18:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well almost all of these clubs are referred to by a longer name, which is used on the Bundesliga website and in Wikipedia article titles. But to prevent having to repeat these long names, it is easier to use the shortened one, which is easier to read. They are almost always shortened down to two words/phrases. Usually things like "SV" are removed before "98". This page has some more information on German football club names. SAJ (T) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Möslestadion

Thanks for clarifying the deletion of categories on the page User:AmiableWookie/Möslestadion! In the future, if you add a note clarifying a change right away, it might lead to understanding more swiftly. Cheers, AmiableWookie (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I apologize for not explaining. I think my mind was on another subject, and I saw your page in the category, so I quickly removed it without thinking. I should have probably just hidden it the first time. Sorry for the lack of an explanation! Have a nice day. SAJ (T) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's OK

Never mind. By the way, I have seen a template for Deportivo Alavés matches...all one of them! Keep up your good work this week '''tAD''' (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha. On a serious note though, I think that club probably does need a template for their matches. Here is what I propose:
So should I create it then? SAJ (T) 22:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
They already have one don't they? I'm sure I saw it on the 2001 final article. Maybe they should have a more general one like Wolfsburg? Your decision, of course. And maybe three is a good start for a Wolfsburg match template '''tAD''' (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so in all seriousness, I do think three probably is enough to warrant a template. So I went ahead and created Template:VfL Wolfsburg matches. Wolfsburg is probably going to be a top club in the next years, and surely there will be more matches. What do you think? SAJ (T) 02:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a good sense of humor. Yep, three is a good start '''tAD''' (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the Schalke Kits. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico s04 94 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I was happy to help. SAJ (T) 17:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Current season

Please discuss this or this. SLBedit (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Article assessment

Feel free to assess the articles yourself. If you believe they'll all be of the same class/importance (as per WP:FOOTY's assessment criteria), then I guess it would make sense for you to tag them as such. I just don't like seeing unassessed articles if I can help it. I mean, there are currently more than 6,500 unassessed articles in this category, and that's just the ones that are tagged with {{WikiProject Football}}, but I can at least help by narrowing down the ones that are in the task force sub-categories. – PeeJay 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Bayer 04 Leverkusen season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonas Eriksson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Florida Cup

Hey Julio,

do you think that it makes sense to create a site for the Florida Cup? If it do, would you like to create it? I would help you by editing stats and keep it up to date.

Cup

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Inter MIlan

Specifically Talk:Inter_Milan/Archive_3#Requested move 5 July 2015. If there are articles that are still piping Inter Milan to Internazionale, it should be corrected as its WP:COMMONNAME in English is Inter Milan. Make a list and I'll clean those up for you. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Numerous football articles, like all the Italian and European articles, use 'Internazionale', as that is really what it should be referred to as. The Inter Milan article used to be located at F.C. Internazionale Milano, but was moved without proper consensus. Anyways, using 'Inter Milan' causes confusion with Milan, which is why 'Internazionale' is preferred. I think even simply 'Inter' would be preferred over 'Inter Milan'. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

db-self

Hello. In case you don't know, if you mess up a category like you did with the spelling of Category:Germany football club sections navagational boxes then the best way to get it deleted is to use {{db-self}} (or {{db-g7}} to its friends) - there's no delay with that template so its less likely to show up on some of the reports I use for malformed categories... Le Deluge (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info, I meant to find the correct template to add to the page, but I ended up forgetting about it, although I meant to get back to it. Sorry about that, I will remember for the future! Thanks again. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Commented out loanees in squad template

Hi. You wrote: "no guarantee they will return, their shirt number may change, it is very simple to add back when needed". All of that is correct. But where is the problem in keeping the commented out loanees as a convenience? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It just seemed a bit confusing and unnecessary to me when I first looked at it. I was updating all of the Bundesliga squad templates, trying to maintain consistency, and it seemed that most other templates did not have the loanees commented out. But you can add them back if it is easier for you. Cheers! Secret Agent Julio (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Alrighty! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1970 DFB-Pokal, etc

I believe your reasoning for moving the DFB-Pokal articles to single season titles is incorrect. The official DFB list (see here) has the 1970 edition, for example, as 1969/1970. Calistemon (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had thought it would make most sense, but I can see how it may be misleading, and the DFB uses the "YYYY/YY" style. But what about the Tschammerpokal? Because some only took place in one year, while others in two. Should all the articles use the "YYYY/YY" style, as the DFB refers to them as? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The DFB is the highest authority on the subject so, I guess, their word ultimately counts. Interestingly it has the Tschammerpokal in the YYYY/YY format as well, see 1936/37 for example, but it is important to remember that the DFB did not exist than and did not organise the tournaments during the Nazi era, only the ones after 1952. Another reliable sourec, kicker, vindicates your moves as it has them in the format you moved them to. Interestingly, for the Tschammerpokal, kicker has 5 editions in the YYYY format and 4 in the YYYY/YY one. I'm a little uncertain myself, that's why I messaged you rather than go and revert. I'm hopping that me posting it on the footy project talk page will provide more input and allow us to form a consensus. I will expand my post there with some of this info. Calistemon (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Moving categories

Sorry, can't be done like you did on Category:TSV 1860 München II players, it actually stuffs it up. It has to be done through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy so that all player articles have the categories moved, usually through a bot. Otherwise you will have to change all 116 articles in the category manually! Calistemon (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually intended to fix the categories of all the players' articles with AWB, but the software ended up freezing and I forgot to restart it. But I guess I'll just let the bots to do the dirty work! Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Florian Meyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgdorf. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patrick Ittrich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oberliga. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style for scrolling lists and collapsible content

The Manual of Style for scrolling lists and collapsible content states "collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." Are you prepared to makes sure everything in that template is in the prose? Kingjeff (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The way the football collapsible template should be used would not violate MOS:COLLAPSE. If the football box is the main source of the information about the match then would violate COLLAPSE but that is the problem, it should not be the only source of information for the match. This is an encyclopaedia and it should contain prose that supports any tables or templates used. Some of the information within the template would never be included in prose or on a table but provides useful background information for the reader. That use would not violate COLLAPSE. Also, when creating articles, please add categories (and possibly templates) to the article. You created the Gladbach article without any categories, which is concerning, as categorisation is an important tool for grouping together similar articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
But it does because it only should be used if literally everything in the template is in the prose. There is information inside the template that would never or very rarely used in the prose like referee and attendance. The 2015–16 Borussia Mönchengladbach season doesn't have any prose at all. Therefore it is the main source of information. The table doesn't withold any information. If you really want the that design. I will look into have a non-collapsible option for you. Kingjeff (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No, everything would not have to be in the prose. Don't take the policy too literally, the template is just providing additional, useful background information to the reader. Those small little details would not need to be in the prose of the article. Summarising the matches would more than suffice the COLLAPSIBLE policy. I think a perfect example is 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season, which is rated as a good article. The article uses fb box collapsible while adequately summarising the season. If there were major MOS issues, it would not be rated as a good article. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You realize the content in the template is not on trial here? The collapsible template is. If it wasn't collapsible then there wouldn't be any issue. Kingjeff (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware, but the template just gives small background details to the reader. The prose will contain a written match summary, the template just compliments it, therefore not violating COLLAPSIBLE. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you actually going to write prose for the 2016–17 Borussia Mönchengladbach season article? Kingjeff (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if it is really necessary, but I might go as far to say that it would not necessarily even need a prose, depending on what you see as notable. But of course club season articles should try to include a prose, but in practise it can be unrealistic for every article to include this. I would like to be able to come to more of a consensus on this issue so there can be more consistency among these articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The manual of style on tables says "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." So, it is appropriate to have both. It is inappropriate to be missing one. Kingjeff (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, articles should have a prose, but in reality the majority of club season articles will not include any. Even some of the articles you create lack an appropriate prose. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Templates

You may want to discuss first before making drastic changes. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. Kante4 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I apologise for that, in hindsight I realise that would have been a better option. I guess at first it did not seem as drastic, and I did not intend to disrupt the style. Sorry again. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok. All your edits were reverted and everything is back at how it should be. Next time, let's discuss things first and go with the result. Kante4 (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Regionalliga

Just wondering, looking at how you laid out the five Regionalliga divisions in Template:2016–17 in German football, are you planning individual division articles like the German Wikipedia has? Personally, I think it would be a good idea as they are essentially seperate leagues, administrated by different regional football associations. @MbahGondrong:'s opinion on the subject might be valuable, too. Calistemon (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it might be a good idea as well. The only thing the leagues share in common is being on the same level. Having all five leagues in one article creates some issues, like listing 16 relegated teams without identifying what league they are from, and it may lead the reader to think it is just one league. Also, each Oberliga has their own article, which allows them to include more relevant information, like matches played, total attendance, etc. I think the German Wikipedia setup is ideal, and would make more sense to the average reader. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. The parent article 2016–17 Regionalliga could just provide an overview, similar to the the German Wikipedia one, while the individual ones could include more information, like in the above mentioned infoboxes. It would also allow to specify which number of season it is for each league which vastly differs after all, Nord being an original 1994 one while Bayern and Südwest being very recent and the other two somewhere in between. Calistemon (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree also. So what should be left in the parent article? Definitely the top scorer and information about promotion and relegation should be on each individual articles right? MbahGondrong (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, if you look at the 2015/16 German article, they give a good summary with article links. I think the important things that should be included in the parent article are a brief explanation of the five Regionalligen, who organises them, a map, the champions of each league (when the season finishes), and an explanation of how promotion works, along with the play-off matches themselves. Any further ideas? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

USA-Colombia line up

Hey man, how are you? Good job with the line up image, but I need to ask you to change it a bit. Can you switch Jones and Bedoya as well as Torres and Pérez? They're playing on opposite sides than the ones on the image. Thanks! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I switched Jones and Bedoya, but according to the official report Torres is on the left while Pérez is on the right. Cheers! Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I changed it based on a broadcast line up as well as the own broadcast as Pérez is playing on the left side and Torres on the right. But anyway, that's all :D Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Costa Rica-Paraguay

Hey man, here we go again :D Let me suggest you something, check the 2014 FIFA World Cup games in which Costa Rica played. They already used the 5-2-2-1 system back then. That line up I added was taken directly from their twitter (which included a visual line up). Anyway, when a team plays like that we list the CB first, then RWB and LWB. After that, the rest of the team. They're playing with two CMs and then two wingers (Ruiz and Cambell), with Ureña as the sole player in the front. Paraguay was also listed based on their twitter, but they didn't have a visual line up. I had some doubts regarding Piris da Motta and González, but I think your edit is the correct in that part. I'm probably creating the Costa Rica later to look better there. Btw, no need to ping me back. I'll be expecting the reply already :D Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Btw, CONMEBOL's reports are the worst. They have the times wrong (compare with CONCACAF for example), like a player enters before the second half and it's supposed to display 46' there, but they list it as 45'... And the list goes on, including wrong line ups. So if you could correct the Costa Rica one, this is the exact example: [1]. Obviously the CMs could be closer to each other in the new one. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't have previous knowledge of CONMEBOL reports, but for the Copa América Centenario they seem to be outsourcing to 'DataFactory'. Both CONCACAF and CA2016.com also use the same data source, so I would be inclined to use that. I am not sure how reliable their Twitter would be, as social media tends not to be a solid source. I screencapped the lineups for Costa Rica and Paraguay, as well as yesterday's lineups for the United States and Colombia. I would think the online report would be preferred, but I am not really sure. So you think it should be adjusted according to File:URU-CRC 2014-06-14.svg? Any other changes? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's because the official twitter from the national team is reliable. They list it directly according to the coach's decision, while reports (like CONMEBOL and it seems that CONCACAF enters that a little bit) tend to have some mistakes. I've seen plenty of them in CONMEBOL, so there's some experience regarding those line ups. About Costa Rica's, I believe it should look just like the one I sent you, perhaps you could put the CMs closer to each other in the middle but that would be all. About the screen caps, I think sometimes they also get things wrong. The Costa Rica is clearly an example as Ruiz does not play in that position. Colombia is even worse... They got a bunch of positions wrong in that one. Anyway, it's always a matter of adjusting according to sources and what we see before the game begins. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, how does the lineup image look now? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, man. Just one thing I noticed that we forgot... Paraguay has more than one Benítez. Maybe we should add the first letter to the image as well. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah, must have missed that one, fixed now. Tell me if I make any more lineup mistakes (now and in future), I'll adjust them if there are any. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I'm back! The reports got you totally wrong on the line-ups for Brazil-Ecuador... I've fixed them there. Brazil goes 4-1-2-2-1 and Ecuador is 4-2-3-1, but the display of the players is wrong. To help with Brazilian display, you put a DM, then two CMs on his side. You'll have two wingers and then the CF. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew the Brazil reported lineup seemed a bit off, I thought I'd put in the provisional one until it could be adjusted. I will update the lineup image accordingly. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, how is the squad now? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Perfect. Maybe you could put William and Coutinho closer to the sides of the field, they really are wingers. Also, you could put Renato Augusto as R. Augusto. His full name might look strange in the image, but just Augusto is even stranger. Everything else is on point :D Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Alright updated! I originally did not have space for Renato Augusto's full name, but after adjusting the lineup it fits alright. And so were Brazil a 4-1-2-2-1 or a 4-1-4-1, similar to this lineup, with Coutinho and Willian a bit more attacking? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
A mix of both. Depends on whether they were attacking or defending. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, should I adjust the lineup image to make it similar to Soccerway? Seems a bit more logical. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine the way it is. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

hi 2602:306:3357:BA0:937:8225:2557:D7FA (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

What? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2016–17 Hannover 96 season

Are you going to work on the article with those wretched templates? I'm certainly not. Please stay out of articles I've been working on. We certainly can't work together. Kingjeff (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, Hannover 96 has used the same style for the last five seasons, why would you change it now? I know you prefer tables, but the style in club season articles should not switch every year. It should be consistent, as the last five seasons have set a precedent. The football box collapsible template is widely used for a reason, so saying they are "wretched" is not a valid reason to not use them. I would like to find some common ground so that more German club season articles can use the same style. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please show me any guideline or policy that states that this should be the case. I have shown you a guideline that state that we shouldn't be using those templates. You have tried to claim that the templates don't violate the guideline. But this is you trying to blatantly ignore the guideline. Kingjeff (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to "blatantly ignore" it, but there needs to be further discussion over whether the templates are a MOS violation. These templates are widely used, so there should at least be further discussion and some consensus before you use the MOS as legitimate reason to not use these templates. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Football lineups

Hey man, how are you? I always wanted to know how those lineups are made... Do you have a template already that you work on? I wanted to do some myself when others are not available to do it. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016

Hi, I saw that you uploaded the image for UEFA Euro 2016 Group A#France v Romania. Good job, but could you please change positions for Stancu and Andone per official lineup? I would if I could, but I dont know how to do it. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I downloaded Inkscape earlier today actually so now I just have to learn it properly. I am not sure how colors are choosen, for example how did you choose the color of france? And regarding player position, do you have examples you follow or do you move the jerseys around? Qed237 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
How did you do to upload it to commons? I used the redlink to upload it but it looks like it is not on commons like yours is? File:WAL-SVK 2016-06-11.svg. Qed237 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be on commons now, but how do you do to upload it? Qed237 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you talking about Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and then press the big Click here to start the Upload Wizard? Then in step 3 I choose This is a free work -> This file is entirely my own work.? Qed237 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I think I got it now and I can fix the lineups on my own if needed. Qed237 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A new question. I just saw that you modified some kits changing colors to the arms and adding lines on body (for example iceland). How did you do that? Just playing in inkscape? Btw, it looks awesome. Qed237 (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thanks! I sometimes will add things like sleeves or stripes if they are a prominent part of the kit. I usually just copy the sleeves/stripes from past lineups, but sometimes I will just draw them using the pen tool. Then I usually select the sleeves/stripes and the body, right click and group them together, and then duplicate it to the rest of that team's kits. You can also ungroup the sleeves/stripes to copy/delete them. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1988 DFB-Supercup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peter Hobday and Frank Schulz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citation overkill

You clearly misused it on the 2016–17 FC Bayern Munich season. You kept the source where it was repeated like you did where it said "Carlo Ancelotti became the new head coach for Bayern." But where there wasn't any repeat like where it said "Bayern hired Paul Clement as their assistant coach", you applied that opinion. Wikipedia:Citation overkill is only an opinion and is not a policy or guideline. Kingjeff (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No, repeating references in separate paragraphs is fine, but there is no need to repeat a reference when they are only a sentence apart. And yes, although WP:OVERCITE is an essay, it still reflects a widespread norm. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

There is only one repeating statement that was repeated in that paragraph. That is where it says "Carlo Ancelotti became the new head coach for Bayern." According to needless repetition section, it states "Material that is repeated multiple times in an article does not require an inline citation for every single mention." First of all, this opinion is not in agreement with you. Therefore, this opinion is only applicable to that one statement. Everything else in the paragraph is only mentioned once in the whole article. Second of all, since everything else in the paragraph is mentioned only once, everything else in the paragraph needs a source. Kingjeff (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I want to deal with one of your statements from earlier. Above, you stated that "...there is no need to repeat a reference when they are only a sentence apart." I will argue with you saying yes you do. If you put the sources at the end of the paragraph like you have done, then a person who comes to the article and reads that paragraph can't say for certainty whether everything is sourced or that one sentenced is sourced. But if you use sources like I do, then everyone will be certain about if something is sourced or not. Let me remind you that this particular section of the essay is clearly about repeating statements like the statement about Carlo Ancelotti becoming the head coach and not the rest of the paragraph where there is currently no repeasting statements. Kingjeff (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then the Ancelotti reference does not need to be repeated. But throughout Wikipedia the style of having references at the end of the paragraph is used, this is nothing new. And I do not think it causes confusion, I would first assume that the preceding paragraph is from the reference in question. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At Euro 2016 knockout phase

Regarding this edit, I think we either say "X plays Y" or "X vs Y", not "X plays vs Y". I don't know what you prefer, but the current state is grammatically wrong, in my opinion. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe discuss it on the talk page? There seems to be disagreement over the best method. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Read the talk page, and don't edit without leaving edit notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UEFA_Euro_2016_knockout_phase#Don.27t_use_unknowns_for_knowns Kevin McE (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion will be irrelevant in a few hours, but I have never seen 'X or Y' used before, only 'Runner up Group Z', so maybe wait for discussion before changing. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The user Kevin McE has been imposing those changes unilaterally, against the consensus. I have reverted him several times and it's getting ridiculous. Should he get reported? The Replicator (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I am providing clear information to readers: The Replicator will not tell me why he wishes to obscure information in an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
And removes requests for him to explain why his proposal if preferable from his talk page, suggesting that he had none. Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@The Replicator: Yes, that was pretty ridiculous, especially for something that would be resolved in such a short amount of time. And although I agree with you, make sure to keep in mind WP:3RR, as you would not want to be blocked. I think it is over now, so no further steps are really necessary. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC).
Yes, I am aware of WP:3RR, but I was already stressed out checking events at the Group E matches when he started the edit war... oh well. Maybe I should have focused on what I was doing and just report him instead of engaging on his edit war. Thank you. The Replicator (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Because you would hate for the encyclopaedia to provide useful information in an easily accessible way. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Listing goals / penalties

Hi Secret Agent Julio, I realize of course that penalties and goals are usually listed with <br>, and there's a very simple reason for that: there was no other way until recently. A few weeks ago I made an edit to the templates to support listing syntax, which looks a lot better in the code (improving readability and reducing chance for mistakes). Not only that, the new syntax is actually semantically superior because it uses {{plainlist}}: after all, it is a list of goals (see the template doc about why it makes more sense than <br>).

So why all this explanation: I'm hoping to find an ally in spreading this new syntax. Of course people are used to using <br> because they know no better. The only way to make people used to the new syntax is by using it on highly visible pages, and recommending it on the template doc. Would you support that? –Sygmoral (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I personally think it is much easier to read in just one line, as everything else is displayed in one line. Using multiple lines only adds confusion and clutter, and the vast majority of editors are unlikely to follow the style. I suggest getting consensus on WP:FOOTY if you are determined to change this. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverts of my edits

I see that you have reverted my edits to hatnotes of various articles. The reason for piping the link through the "(disambiguation)" redirect is WP:INTDABLINK. This helps those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. Please restore the piping through the redirect. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: Sorry, I misread WP:INTDABLINK, I now understand they are meant to be redirected. Thanks for fixing. Cheers! Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Copa América Centenario Final

Where is this discussion/consensus not to add {{current sport|sport=soccer|event=match}} to matches? I can't seem to find it anywhere. The only thing I can find is not to do Live scoring. Elisfkc (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but the template is unnecessary if there are no live scores or statistics allowed. Information should only be added after the match is finished, therefore making the template pointless. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Football line-ups

I noticed you created some recent EURO 16 line-up files. They are great and I was just wondering; how do you make them? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Dingo: It is not too difficult, you can edit the SVGs using a program Inkscape, which works fairly well. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! - Yellow Dingo (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox/85

Do you need all those templates at User:Secret Agent Julio/Sandbox/85? I guess you have noticed the errors at the bottom of the page where many templates are not being displayed? That is because the page tries to use more than 2 million bytes to expand the templates, which fails and puts the page in an error tracking category (Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded). Perhaps you could delete some of them, or turn them into links if you want a list. For example, change {{Alemannia Aachen}} to {{tl|Alemannia Aachen}} which displays as {{Alemannia Aachen}}. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks for the info, didn't know it was in a tracking category. For now I'll just hide it. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 SC Freiburg season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zimmern. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Final template

Hi, I saw that you created {{Final}} and added to the UEFA Euros, but I failed to see any good use for it. Could you please explain to me why it was created and how it could be useful? Qed237 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Wikinews}} removal

Whether it is news at the moment or not,as per WP:SISTER; it is to help the readers. A lot of content of WP is not news. We don't remove it because this is an encyclopedia which is to help the readers so does that template. A reader can click on the link, know more about the match in depth. And to point out, many football fans do like to know what happened in the match whenever they have a debate on their favourite/rival team.
Agastya Chandrakant (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It should not be in sections with tables. There are also links on the page people can open to read a match summary. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Final

Template:Final has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Qed237 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Sorry, meant to reply but I forgot as I was a bit distracted. I was gonna delete it as well, as it is not really necessary. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2016 Munich shootings

On 22 July 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Munich shootings, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Copa América Centenario Group A

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I need no "reminder" of the rules, as I was not edit warring. The first two reverts were due to the fact you converted all the scores to have links to the section they were in on the article, which is entirely redundant. The third revert was defending the common consensus which is used on numerous football related tournament articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

German club names

Here we go again. Another thing that we have to go over.

  1. WP:Karlsruher clearly establishes that in prose "a shortened name can be used, once the proper name has been established".
  2. It also clearly establishes that in tables, it is possible to have shorten names in table. It states "Equally in tables where there is a lack of space, abbreviations can be used".
  3. It's an opinion. Therefore, it is not binding in any article on Wikipedia. Kingjeff (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Even if it is an opinion, how about you look at the general consensus? See Bundesliga articles, tables, other club season articles, etc. where these names are used. Also, a table is not prose, and therefore should use the full name. And the full quote ends with "abbreviations can be used, but this is rare on Wikipedia". Also to note that 'Borussia Mönchengladbach' is longer than any of the other club names, making the "lack of space" argument invalid. The main point is that "in German football, it is not common practice to list clubs by just the town/city names". It sounds awkward, and is just plain wrong, especially for clubs like 1. FC Köln, which you shortened to simply Köln. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There is clearly a "lack of space" in the table we're specifically talking about. Kingjeff (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The names have been established, just as you wanted. Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
As I just mentioned, there is no lack of space, which WP:KARLSRUHER clearly states is rare. Also, the name 'Borussia Mönchengladbach' is wider than any of the other clubs' full name, making the shortening of the names of all the other clubs senseless. And saying that they are now established does not apply. "Obviously in article prose, a shortened name can be used, once the proper name has been established, to make the text flow more easily". This does not refer to tables, only prose so that it sounds more natural. The main issue is that you are going against the long-standing, general consensus that is used on a multitude of articles. This is simply not the correct way to refer to German clubs when outside of prose. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The claim with the word "rare" means that it is possible. If you look at the table, you clearly see that there is a lack of space. Iet m remind you that thi is only' an opinion and is not binding. Kingjeff (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I do not believe this falls into the "rare" category. As I mentioned, the "opponents" column is already the width of 'Borussia Mönchengladbach', and every other club's name, even the full version, is shorter than Gladbach's. And once again, even if WP:KARLSRUHER is an "opinion", it represents a general consensus among German football articles which you seem to be ignoring. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not as long as Borussia Mönchengladbach. It's only as long as Mönchengladbach. Borussia Mönchengladbach is actually on two rows. Not two rows of the table, but two rows because there is a lack of space. Kingjeff (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, it all depends on the monitor size. Even the second and third widest clubs, Borussia Dortmund and Eintracht Frankfurt are wider than any of the shortened names. But that is not even the point. There really is no lack of space, and you are still going against the general consensus, which is mentioned on WP:KARLSRUHER and can be seen on numerous German football articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Bayer 04 Leverkusen season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Offenbach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

English vs. German title on English Wikipedia

The Olympic Stadium in Berlin certainly is not "widely known in English" as the Olympiastadion.

Olympiastadion is a German word and construct. This is English Wikipedia. Your revert is unfounded and preposterous. How can you possibly argue that this historically famous (or infamous) stadium is known in English as a Stadion, the German word? Quatsch! Ridiculous!

Consider:

  • The German Olympiastadion, Berlin gets 236,000 hits on Google..
  • The English Olympic Stadium, Berlin gets 1,570,000 hits – almost seven times as many as the German.

Please reconsider, and undo these mysterious, counter-intuitive, ill-advised and illogical reverts. Sca (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just did a Google search, and for "Olympiastadion Berlin" ([2]) I got 585,000 results, while "Olympic Stadium Berlin" got only 62,200 results ([3]). Lots of stadium names contain foreign words, yet they still often contain these words when referred to in English. Even UEFA refers to it as the Olympiastadion. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Forcing your personal preferences on several articles in the german Bundesliga

Thanks to you Wikipedia just lost another contributor hope you are happy now .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.103.151.100 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What are you even referring to? I'm just trying to be consistent, all I am doing is following a common style used in the season articles of numerous clubs on Wikipedia. If you are referring to the Köln article, see articles like 2016–17 Real Madrid C.F. season, 2016–17 FC Barcelona season, 2016–17 Arsenal F.C. season, etc. which have the friendly matches listed directly above the competitive ones. It makes sense to keep all the friendly matches in one place, as their will be mid-season ones too. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Copa América Centenario Group Stage Information

I, as you call, 'hid' the group stage information because someone on the talk page asked for it since they wanted consistency as is seen with other group stage information in previous tournaments, who cares about Euro 2016, their format can be different if they want. If you want to change the group stage info of the other Copa América tournaments to have consistency with the Euro 2016 tournament then you should perhaps discuss with people on talk pages and the group stage details may be shown if the majority of people agree with you.

Sorry for the rather late reply.

Cheers, RugbyLeagueFan (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, all I was saying is that if a major tournament like the Euros uses it that the Copa América can use the same style. And I do not see why consistency is prioritised above helpfulness to the reader so they can see the quick match details like goals, attendance, etc. There is no reason to only show detailed knockout stage info on the main article. Maybe a discussion would be needed on WP:FOOTY, as I think this style provides much more helpful information to the reader, as many people come to Wikipedia to see the results/goals on the main article. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2016–17 RB Leipzig season
added a link pointing to Grassau
List of DFB-Pokal top scorers
added a link pointing to Aílton
List of DFB-Pokal winning managers
added a link pointing to Hans Meyer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and Karl Hopfner

Karl Hopfner is the President of FC Bayern Munich eingetragener Verein and Chairman of the supervisory board for FC Bayern Munich Aktiengesellschaft. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge is the chairman of the executive board. Rumenigge's role is chief executive officer as it's called in North America or managing director as it's called in the United Kingdom. So, Hopfner's positions has a higher ranking than Rummenigge. Kingjeff (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This in no way implies that Rummenigge is ranked above Hopfner, it is just a list. This is identical to what is used in the infobox on the FC Bayern Munich article. Why removed helpful content to the reader? And also, you have yet to address the fact that you are going against the general consensus for the club names on the article, mentioned on WP:KARLSRUHER. I think outside input might be necessary. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It is too complicated to have this problem in the infobox. Kingjeff (talk) 03:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You realize that at FC Bayern Munich AG, there are two chairmen? Kingjeff (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Just like the article FC Bayern Munich, the chairman field refers to the Vorstandsvorsitzender, which doesn't seem overly confusing. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
But you didn't put vorstand in. You just had Chairman. Kingjeff (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the clarification isn't really even necessary, just like on the FC Bayern Munich article. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
So, you have no problem misleading people? Kingjeff (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I honestly do not think that it is very misleading, but include Vorstand if you insist. Although saying AG board chairman seems like it would be clearer. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve doing what you did while two active discussions are happening about WP:KARLSRUHER. Kingjeff (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, three editors agreed there is no lack of space on the German football task force, so I decided to restore it. The section on the task force was about the specific article, not WP:KARLSRUHER, so consensus is the deciding factor, not the validity of the WP:KARLSRUHER. Three editors seems like enough. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Not where it counts. The discussion on the German Task Force is irrelevant. The discussion on the WikiProject Football talkpage means everything. This is where consensus is goingto be reached. You are, and those other two editors, are missing one big point about WP:KARLSRUHER. In the Ambiguity section, it allows editors who insist on using the "British standard" to use the "British standard." Kingjeff (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
What, so you can validate yourself going against the common naming practice of German football clubs? You are misinterpreting WP:KARLSRUHER if you think that is what it implies. You are grasping at straws here, trying to find every excuse and loophole so the article can use the British style. You continue to change reasons why the names should not be used on the Bayern season article, and why WP:KARLSRUHER should be ignored. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
The only validation I need is that it's not a policy, it's not a guideline, no consensus has been reached, and an essay is not equal to those three. It is not my "essay". Therefore, those are not my "loopholes". It merely becomes me reading WP:KARLSRUHER and me interpreting it. Kingjeff (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
No, just because it is an essay does not mean there is a lack of consensus. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Kaiserstuhl-Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endingen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

German Regionalliga templates

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to redirect German Regionalliga squad templates such as Template:FC Energie Cottbus squad instead of going through the deletion process? I think the clean-up itself is good as these are legacies of clubs that no longer play tier III football but I find the method a bit unorthodox. ;) Kq-hit (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I realise it was a mistake, gonna do a TFD instead. I am not sure if any should be kept? The Dortmund second team seems to have many notable players, so maybe them at least? But the vast majority seem to have more black than blue text, and do not get updated often. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 DFB-Pokal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heidenheim. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Commenting out in squad templates

Hi there, always trying to figure out best practices on Wikipedia, would you be willing to share your rationale for deleting loaned out players from squad templates instead of commenting them out? You are right that re-adding players isn't difficult but leaving them undoubtedly speeds things up, does it not? Is there some major drawback to leaving them in but commented out that you see? Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: It just seems unnecessary to leave them, seeing it takes ~10 seconds to add back the next season. There is no guarantee they will return from the loan, and lots of things can change, like shirt number, or the article page might even be moved to a different title. Also, it makes things easier while trying to keep all of the templates in the top three leagues up to date. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1992 DFB-Supercup
added links pointing to Neunkirchen and Michael Koch
1993 DFB-Supercup
added a link pointing to Andreas Fischer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2011 DFL-Supercup
added a link pointing to Rottenburg
2012 DFL-Supercup
added a link pointing to Michael Weiner
Jeff-Denis Fehr
added a link pointing to Stolberg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016–17 Bundesliga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobby Wood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Loan

Template:Loan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joseph2302 09:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Captain

Template:Captain has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joseph2302 09:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fs3 player

Template:Fs3 player has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fs3

Template:Fs3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fs3 manager

Template:Fs3 manager has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fs3 mid

Template:Fs3 mid has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Efs position

A tag has been placed on Template:Efs position requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2016–17 Borussia Dortmund season
added a link pointing to Daniel Siebert
2016–17 SC Freiburg season
added a link pointing to Markus Schmidt
2016–17 VfL Wolfsburg season
added a link pointing to Daniel Siebert
Jannes Horn
added a link pointing to Defender

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Nomination for Daniel Zeaiter

Hi Secret Agent Julio, I am sorry to tell you that I have to delete your article on Daniel Zeaiter. If you have any concerns, leave a comment on my talk page. Don't be rude or threaten me. That will only make matters worse. Thanks, GAMTWMV — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAMTWMV (talk • contribs) 04:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@GAMTWMV: Only make matters worse? I removed the PROD tag, Zeaiter has made 5 appearances in the 3. Liga, defined by WP:FPL as a fully professional league, with Mainz 05 II, which makes him notable, per WP:NFOOTY. Please understand specific notability guidelines before PRODing an article. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DFB-Pokal logo 2001.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DFB-Pokal logo 2001.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nahuel Fioretto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nueva Chicago. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kim-Pascal Boysen

Hi, I'm UNSC Luke 1021. Secret Agent Julio (alt), thanks for creating Kim-Pascal Boysen!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for contributing! Wikipedia is powered by new people like you, so remember to make articles and attain a high quality of work at the same time!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

1959 German football championship

Hi, Julio! I really appreciate your edits. Thanks for your efforts. However, the reason for one of your latest edits [4] escapes me. There are more matches in the category, so why did you delete this? Cheers -Lemmy- (talk)

@-Lemmy-: Hey, sorry for the lack of explanation. I removed the matches category, as all the rest of the German football championship articles do not have these type of categories, and the article is about a tournament, not a specific match. Which is why I am also planning on updating all of the infoboxes to {{Infobox football tournament season}}, not the match version. I also removed the category because I am planning on creating redirects (with categories) for all the German football championship finals (similar to DFB-Pokal finals), as in the future I (hopefully) will create them all. I thought I would start off by first creating one final, the 1959 German football championship Final (since that's what we are talking about!). Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks for your explanation and keep up the great work! -Lemmy- (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Uefa U18 Challenge

Agree about deleting it, maybe a mention in the Youth League article is enough, what do you think? 79.44.155.54 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Marko

@79.44.155.54: Hmm, the only issue is that it was an under-18 match from 2010, while the UEFA Youth League is an under-19 competition founded in 2013, so I am not sure if they really go together well. The U18 Challenge was a one-off match, and does not really fit well anywhere. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my doubt came from this page on uefa.com (http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=1905480.html), here this match is referred as an "inspiration" for the Youth League, also on some player profile page on the same site (e.g Lorenzo Crisetig), the U18 challenge is listed as their debut in a Uefa Competition. Sorry for my english I'm still learning 87.13.2.126 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Marko

@79.44.155.54: Thanks for the link! I added some match info to the history section on the Youth League article, I think that should suffice? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's enough! Happy to have contributed, have a nice day!79.54.153.136 (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Marko

Why do you think that is unnecessary? ([5]). My edit facilitates the navigation between the templates and, respectively among the tournaments--Unikalinho (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, typically you should not link to a navbox. Also, people can go to the main article on German football champions to see the Bundesliga section, a link to a template is unnecessary. Also, I restored the Bundesliga navboxes, having one template makes navigation easier, similar to {{Premier League}}. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. If a man sees for example German championship 1955-56 and want go easy at Bundesliga 1963-64 -- he can to receive it with 2 clicks of mouse using the {{German football championship}} and this arrow guiding at {{Bundesliga seasons}}. I don't understand why do you think it's not good--Unikalinho (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Explanations will be? Or we will do on the principle "I decided to..."?--Unikalinho (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As well. We have two different wikidata-elements: [6] and [7]. All the interwiki have two templates: 1. teamlist and 2. seasons. And you made confusion! The interlangual navigation is violated. Restore please the normal version, with two templates -- one per each wikidata-element--Unikalinho (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I would no say that {{Premier League}} would be sample for all the championships. For example, I think that navigation is easer when we have teamlist singly, with singly interwikis, and seasons singly (respectively, with its interwiki). Premier League could be exception, because of their specific history (in particular origin)--Unikalinho (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to reply earlier. I cleaned up the Wikidata entries, after you merged the items. Not all interwikis use two separate templates, as can be seen in wikidata:Q27539796. Using one template allows for better navigation between related articles on the same topic instead of dividing them into two parts. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Israel football AfD's

Do you have any objection to adding Israel at the 1956 AFC Asian Cup, Israel at the 1960 AFC Asian Cup, Israel at the 1964 AFC Asian Cup, and Israel at the 1968 AFC Asian Cup to your AfD? It seems to me the same logic would apply and I'm not sure why you didn't nominate those as well. Smartyllama (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: The main reason I did not include those articles in the AfD is due to the fact that Israel actually participated in the final tournament. After the discussion here, some users thought that participation at any top level tournament could have an article. I personally think they should be deleted as well, but possibly in a different discussion as I did not want them to dilute from my main point. Also, I was going to consider a deletion discussion for Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup, Israel at the UEFA European Championship, and Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship, as they never took part in any of the tournaments. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Assuming these are closed as delete (which it looks like they will) do you plan on nominating equivalent articles in other sports where Israel did not participate in the final (top-level, in the case of sports like ice hockey, where there are multiple tiers) tournament? There are a bunch. Smartyllama (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Smartyllama: I mainly edit football related articles, so I probably won't nominate articles in other sports that I am not as knowledgeable about. However, I do believe many of these articles are excessive, and I would support any nominations. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the EuroBasket 1953 (2nd nomination). If that's closed as delete, I'll nominate the other EuroBasket articles en masse. Smartyllama (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

DAB moves

I was a little confused by this.[8] We don't disambiguate page names unless there are two or more articles (or in this case people) with the same name. I scrolled back in you contributions and see that there are quite a few similar moves done on the 8th October.[9] Is there a reason for this that I am missing? AIRcorn (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Florian Meyer, there is a footballer with the same name as his. I am planning on creating articles for missing 3. Liga players, so I moved it in preparation for the project, which has been delayed a bit. But in the near future I plan on creating these articles. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Feel free to move it back. AIRcorn (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1989–90 FDGB-Pokal into 1990 FDGB-Pokal Final. 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. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Torsten Frings

As you know, it is what the source says. Here, here, and here clearly put his hiring as Darmstadt's manager in past tense. When something is put in past tense, it means something has already happened. The only time when we put a future date in is when we have coaches like Thomas Tuchel and Carlo Ancelotti being hired in the season prior to taking over. We use the date hired with off-season and mid-season appointments. Kingjeff (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

He's been appointed manager, but has not taken up the managerial role yet. See 2016–17 Bundesliga#Manegerial changes. The appointment date does not necessarily reflect the incoming date, which is why another editor added 3 January to reflect this. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
But in mid-season, being appointed and taking up the role is one and the same thing. There isn't any source that states otherwise. The source you showed earleir doesn't explicitly say that. Are you saying if there was no mid-winter break in Germany, that he wouldn't have his first training session until 3 January 2017? The mid-winter break is clearly the only reason why he hasn't had his first training session yet. Kingjeff (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

1954 line-up

Agent, thanks much for your preparedness to help, but at the same time, sorry that I undid our change - as the chart that is there now shows better the payers' effective position on the pitch. Bozsik played higher than Zakarias, for example, with Zakarias covering for Bozsik when Bozsik was attacking but not vice versa. Fritz Walter played deeper than Morlock, organizing the game from the center, while Morlock was really a second striker (Stossstuermer) behind Otmar Walter. And it is not true that Rahn and Schafer would have played higher up than Czibor and Toth, as your chart would suggest.

My trouble with the line-up chart (and hence the reason why I asked for help) was that I had difficulties putting in the right fonts an font sizes (as I had never worked with SVG before). But after many painful attempts, I am reasonably satisfied with how this came out. Cheers Henry Kaspar (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Henry Kaspar: Can you source this though? It currently appears as WP:OR to me. The line-up images are only supposed to be indicative anyway, not really a tactical formation (as there are too many variables and tactics that change throughout the match). Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I will move the discussion to the talk page of the article and elaborate there. Cheers, Henry Kaspar (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The Best FIFA Football Coach

It's different from FIFA World Coach of the Year (obviously both of them honour the best coach around the world). It's exactly like FIFA Women's World Player of the Year and The Best FIFA Women's Player.--Dipralb (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dipralb: Is that even necessary? I really think articles about the same type of FIFA award should be combined. For example, "The Best FIFA Men's Player" is just a continuation of "FIFA Ballon d'Or", which is just a continuation of "FIFA World Player of the Year". There is not huge difference between the awards other than the name, so why make a large distinction? For this year, due to the fact FIFA split with the Ballon d'Or of France Football, they decided to totally rebrand the awards ceremony with "The Best". That does not change the fact that the managerial awards are a continuation of "FIFA World Coach of the Year". We don't have a separate article for the "European Cup" just because it was renamed to "Champions League". I would be alright with moving "FIFA World Coach of the Year" to "The Best FIFA Football Coach", but two separate articles is excessive. Same goes with the female player of the year, as the award only slightly changed names. Not exactly sure about the men's award, but the current state is overkill. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

MLI v. EGY

Hello SAJ. I see at 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Group D that, just like me, you fell in the trap of CAF that wanted all of us to confuse Kahraba and Trézéguet :) But it actually is Trézéguet that is playing with n°21 (contrary to the original n°11 for Trezeguet and n°21 Kahraba in the official squad lists). Could you please redo the line-up image to show that change ? Cheers. Tuttiseme (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tuttiseme: Another error by CAF! Thanks for pointing that out, image should be fixed now. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?

[10]. In navboxes the links must lead to full article, not to redirect--Unikalinho (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Unikalinho: The link is WP:NOTBROKEN, as it allows for links to correctly reach the target while allowing for future article expansion. Also, typically two links to the same article are unnecessary. And not sure what you mean by Spain squad 1964 European Nations' Cup eventually being an article... Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
In other languages wiki there are articles corresponding Spain squad 1964 European Nations' Cup. We may create it also here in enwiki--Unikalinho (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Unikalinho: Well, I highly doubt that is necessary or will ever exist, as there are no similar articles on the enwiki, and squads are already detailed at 1964 European Nations' Cup squads. The only article I could see being created is Spain at the 1964 European Nations' Cup, which would include more than just the squads. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
By WP:NOTBROKEN. You are saying "while allowing for future article expansion". But: what do you mean describe in 1960 European Nations' Cup knockout stage?? Until 1976 there was no system "groups+playoff" -- so is the article about Knockout stage unitl 1976 senseless -- the knockout stage began 1980, when the group tournament was introducted--Unikalinho (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Unikalinho: Yes, but all I mean is an article equivalent to something like UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase, which can have the match line-ups, kits, image, etc., as this is too much for the main article. The naming does not really matter, it could be called 1960 European Nations' Cup final tournament. The only reason I choose "knockout stage" was for consistency with all the later tournaments, and for the fact I haven't seen any articles containing "final tournament" in the title. But I would be fine creating 1960 European Nations' Cup final tournament, if it would be more appropriate. The only issue I see is that "1960 European Nations' Cup final tournament" could be confused with "1960 European Nations' Cup" itself. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, then we must do, in navboxes, [[1960 European Nations' Cup final tournament|Knockout stage]]. On the one hand -- unification in navboxes (everywhere "Knockout stage"), on the other hand -- the correct name of the articles, without of the redirects in navboxes--Unikalinho (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
But there is the other moment. The qualiffications to the tournaments 1960 and 1964 were also knockout-system. So the text "Knockout stage" in this two templates, leads to confusion between qualification and final tournament. The must coerrect variant in this two cases would be [[1960 European Nations' Cup final tournament|Final tournament]]--Unikalinho (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Unikalinho: All right, should 1968 to 1976 use "final tournament" in the title as well to stay consistent with the editions that did not have a group stage? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Here are possible both variants. In my view "final tournament" would be better, because it is considering as the separate tournaments (the teams came together specifically, separate from the qualifying). But "knockout stage" would also possible. And why do you think that in all the edition-templates we schould write the same?--Unikalinho (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

False Hertha names

You have now repeatedly introduced false names in an article about Hertha BSC. Stop it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hertha=Strong (talk • contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Secret Agent Julio, why do you have two accounts? What is the story on User:Secret Agent Julio (alt)? You have contributions at Special:Contributions/Secret Agent Julio as well as Special:Contributions/Secret Agent Julio (alt). EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Secret Agent Julio, you and the other party are both warned per the result of the edit warring complaint. You should not make any more reverts about the name of the club until you have obtained a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you for starting a talk page discussion, EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Jannis Pellowski) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jannis Pellowski, Secret Agent Julio!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed. Barely meets NFOOTY#2. Please review the infobox to confirm that his senior career is correct. Should it be "2016 FSV Frankfurt 1 (0)"? Is he actually in the current squad, given that his sole appearance was in a DFB-Pokal game?

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Jesse Weißenfels) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jesse Weißenfels, Secret Agent Julio!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Meets WP:NFOOTY#2

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S.A._Julio/Archive_1&oldid=1143279089"