User talk:SuperJew/2013

2013–14 Central Coast Mariners season

Hello, thank your for your recent edits to this page. However, when making edits please keep in mind that this page (along with other A-League team pages that you have edited) is associated with a primary article for the 2013–14 A-League season, which uses specific templates and naming conventions for venues in the schedule. Should you believe that your method should be used across the team and season pages, please discuss it first on the talk page for the Australian soccer task force rather than modifying pages en masse. Rjbsmith (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, please do not change the team flag from "CentralCoastColours 2" to "CentralCoastColours". This flag is the one that is used across all A-League pages. Rjbsmith (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"CentralCoastColours 2" was used because Gold Coast had the same colors, but since Gold Coast is not in the league, "CentralCoastColours" can be used. --SuperJew (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, "CentralCoastColours 2" is the flag that is currently used across all of the A-League pages, and is the one that editors are directed to use when making additions to the transfers page. If you believe that "CentralCoastColours" should be used instead, please raise it on the task force talk page first rather than unilaterally modifying pages. Rjbsmith (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Raised on task force talk page. Please reply there. --SuperJew (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane Roar 2013/14

I noticed you have edited the towns and cities to reflect the biggest city in that area. I have reverted it so that it depicts which actual town it is in. Using Brisbane for Perry Park as the "location" instead of using Bowen Hills would be like using London as the location for Stamford Bridge. As Rjbsmith said, "the city does not provide any indication of where the venue is actually located". If people wish to know which city is closest, a simple click of the linked stadium name would suffice. Protenpinner (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Protenpinner & Rjbsmith, "a simple click of the linked stadium name would suffice" also to know in exactly which suburb the stadium is located, the purpose IMO on the season page match summaries is for the general population to get an idea at a glance.

BTW, your point about Stamford Bridge: Firstly, it is located on the border of Chelsea and Fulham. Secondly, in matches summaries on wikipedia it is referred to as location of London, for a recent example see here.

Once again, the purpose of the location of a stadium on match summary pages is for the greater population, which a city helps much more than a suburb (which would probably only help people of that city).

--SuperJew (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the purpose of the location of a stadium on match summary pages is for the greater population, which a city helps much more than a suburb (which would probably only help people of that city).

Again, the primary audience of the club season articles are people of that city (whether it be Brisbane, Sydney, Central Coast etc) as supporters of the respective clubs. Furthermore, the games in question are against suburban sides who are playing at their (suburban) home grounds, and in a metropolitan area that is nearly 50% larger than that of London (in the case of Sydney) it makes far more sense to list the actual location of the ground.

Secondly, listing at a city rather than suburb level is inconsistent with usage in other Australian sporting codes. For example, the season pages for NRL clubs, when mentioning the location of venues such as Kogarah Oval, Endeavour Field and Campbelltown Stadium do not list the location as Sydney; rather they are listed as Kogarah, Woolooware and Campbelltown respectively.

Thirdly, the naming convention currently in place has been in use for several years without complaint. To unilaterally change pages en masse simply because you think that your method is more appropriate is unwarranted. Rjbsmith (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjbsmith put my opinion into words much better than I did. Effectively what he said. Protenpinner (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

2013-14 Melbourne Victory Season, your edits

I deleted those link lines to the players who don't have a wikipedia page so it doesn't look messy, on the MVFC page we have agreed to disable links to pages that do not exist, as it looks unorganised and lazy. Please do not edit the Melbourne Victory pages like that again, as it will be reverted. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crelache (talk • contribs) 08:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on man, As I said above, red links are not welcome on any page fully devoted to MVFC, those names will be linked if their article is created, you can do that on other pages but not them. Also, it was Melbourne Victory B that played the tasmanian team, not A, they played the next game against Western Sydney. If you don't think any of the views of what I've written are the best for these pages, raise it on the MVFC talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crelache (talk • contribs) 08:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at other season pages of the A-League, they are all written like that. and what is this weasel wording? who is we? where is this discussion? I looked through MVFC's talk page and didn't find any mention of this.

Also, as mentioned in my edit, with the red links readers can know the person's full names too.

Re, Melbourne B, I don't see a reason for that to be mentioned in the article, since most pre-season games use a squad with lots of substitutes, as that is the point of the pre-season - time to try out new things, formations, players, etc. B should only be used for stuff like an Intra-club match.

and speaking about non-professionalism, sign your comments on talk pages.

--SuperJew (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wanderers Oval

I have restored the capacity figure of 1,000 to Wanderers Oval with an explanation of why 10,000 is a dubious figure on the talk page. However, I have not removed the 10,000 figure. For now, both can remain. Greater weight should not be given to the 10,000 figure as 1,000 is cited by two sources, one of which said the 4,000 attendance figure is 400% of capacity. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Live scores

Hello, I noticed your recent edits on 2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage, Wikipedia is not used for live scoring. Please wait until matches are over before submitting your edits. Thank You. Skyblueshaun (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is... always has been. what is the template mip for if not exactly that? --SuperJew (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a live scoring site, You have still continued to edit live scores which leads to reporting and unfortunately may result in a block being handed to you. If you continue to edit live scores then I will have no other option. Skyblueshaun (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

you DIDN'T answer my question. it always has been used for live scoring, as template mip proves --SuperJew (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the use of the template. The documentation for {{Match in progress}} ({{mip}} is a redirect) specifically says "live updates to unfinished matches and games are not in keeping with Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopaedia". The purpose of the template is to "make the incomplete nature of the match or game clear to readers". In other words, it identifies that the score shown may not represent the actual score, as scores aren't added until the end of the match. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

but it does agree that there is no problem in having the score --SuperJew (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WHY NOT LIVE SCORES? the whole point of wikipedia is to be as up to date as possible! --SuperJew (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not the case. There is no rush to have Wikipedia to be as up to date as possible. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to scoop, but a lot of people (me included) use it to keep up to date on matches. it's not harming anyone. why fight it so forcefully? --SuperJew (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

and on the other hand, Wikipedia:There is a deadline, Wikipedia:The deadline is now :D --SuperJew (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is a deadline is not actually about cramming stuff into an article as soon as it's available, it's about adding content so we don't lose the record of it. If you simply wait until the end of a match, instead of updating while the match is in progress, that's not going to happen, so Wikipedia:There is a deadline doesn't apply. Wikipedia:The deadline is now is about removing unverifiable content from an article so people aren't mislead by it. That doesn't apply because we aren't talking about removing unverifiable content but it does apply because we don't want to mislead people and adding scores before the end of the game can do that if readers aren't aware the scores are not final. "It's not harming anyone" is an argument that frequently comes up in deletion discussions. While it's not exactly on point here, WP:NOHARM does give some background on why "it's not harming anyone" isn't a good argument. We regularly withhold editing articles across Wikipedia until final results are in. This has wide consensus. The TV project, for example, doesn't add ratings figures to articles as soon as they're available. Instead, they wait until the final ratings are in. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Western Sydney Wanderers FC season articles, your edits

I have noticed you recent edits on 2012–13 Western Sydney Wanderers season and 2013–14 Western Sydney Wanderers season (as well as other recent A-League club season articles) with your intention to 'clean-up' and 'add' further content to the respected articles. For the most part, I thank you, though I do not think that National Youth League and W-League information should be included in the season articles. They should only include information from the representative men's team. It seems that you just dumped some information in the wrong place. Especially when the infobox, Season overview section, Players section, Technical staff section and Squad statistics section is solely focused on the representative men's team. Match information on the National Youth League and W-League can be kept on the respected league articles, or if you wish, create individual articles on the youth and women's teams. I will wait for a response from you.--2nyte (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

They are still the same club, with youth player may play for the senior team, and senior players (up to 4 i think) may play for the youth team. also, I don't think the W-League and NYL teams, have enough content for their own content.

--SuperJew (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do represent the same club, but not the same team. All the content on the season articles are specific to the men's representative team, not the women's or youth. It's not necessary to add that content, it just seems messy. Why not just develop 2013–14 A-League National Youth League and 2013–14 W-League; you're only showing match results anyway, there's no reason to duplicate that information. If you think there is reason to do so, then please explain why.--2nyte (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

By the same token, you could say there is no need to show the matches of the A-League or the AFC Cup, as they already are on the league pages anyway...

Anyway, I also put for the w-league and NYL: league table, results by round, results summary and goalscorers.

--SuperJew (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, the whole article focuses on not the clubs season, but the men's representative team's season. The infobox, Season overview section, Players section, Technical staff section and Squad statistics section; it all focuses on the men's team, therefor the match information for the men's team is relevant to the article. But the match information for the W-L and NYL is pointlessly dumped in the middle of the article, putting it bluntly.--2nyte (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The coaching staff can easily have an extra couple of lines for the W-L and NYL coaches, they also often move around. It is another aspect of the team, and it is in the same way that the news of all 3 is under footballaustralia.com.au/teamname/news...

--SuperJew (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The match info for the men's team complements the rest of the article. The match info for the women's/youth team is unnecessary to the rest of the article. How you've formated the article makes it seem like the men's team plays in the W-League and National Youth League. Please don't mix and match the information just because it's 'all the same club'. Either expand the women's/youth team info on separate articles or remove the match info for the women's/youth team all together. It doesn't matter if it's the same club, the content is not necessary for the article. Your intentions may be for good, but you're overcomplicating the article and making it look messy.--2nyte (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. they are obviously different, as they are in different sections of Competitions. To split it to 3 different pages makes it messy and hard for supporters to find the info about their club's seasons.

--SuperJew (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How is it obvious? There is no mention of a women's/youth team in the whole season article. As I said above, the infobox, Season overview section, Players section, Technical staff section and Squad statistics section is solely focused on the men's team, there is not one mention of the women's/youth team. To split it into 3 different pages does not make it messy; it makes it structured, and that's what I'm asking for.--2nyte (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Much harder for people to find the info they want. much easier if it is on one summarized page. --SuperJew (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is much harder to find information on the women's/youth team in the middle of the men's team article. Just take a look at 2013–14 Western Sydney Wanderers season. It looks like and reads as if the men's team competes in the National Youth League and W-League. The article represents ONE squad, ONE team, not three. You can't just add information into the article and expect it to fit in, it has to be contextualised.--2nyte (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

It reads as one club which competes in different leagues. As I said, you can see on the page the news for the a-league, w-league and nyl is on the same page.

--SuperJew (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, lets agree that the article reads as one club which competes in different leagues, that's fine. But what the article doesn't do which it needs to is specify that there are different teams (from the same club) that competes in different leagues. We have to specify that there are three different teams (men's/women's/youth), three different squads, three different coaching staffs, and three separate seasons (one men's, one women's, and the other youth). They may all represent the same club, but we can't just group these different teams, these separate seasons together without specifying so. I'll repeat, you MUST contextualised the information.--2nyte (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I added some text. what says you? --SuperJew (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the WSW women's team information to a separate season article as I have noticed many W-League teams have their own season article (here). I think we could keep the youth team information because as you said many players from the men's team play in the youth season, but I think we should specify this specifically in the article. Also, I think we should move the Pre-season section out of the A-League section. Many youth team players and trial players play in the pre-season matches, it's not really the men's (A-League) squad; I think the section would fit better where it was before.--2nyte (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Corrections

Hi, SuperJew,

Happy to note your corrections in the article,Mar Thoma Syrian Church. I am a “Marthomite” and have done a number of edits to that article. Also, really appreciate the note on your User & Talk pages, “Do not edit this page on the Sabbath or on Jewish holidays”.Neduvelilmathew (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and thanks :) --SuperJew (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Invite

Hi SuperJew, thanks for your work on Australian women's soccer articles. I'm not sure if you've had one of these yet:

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

It's nice to see a talented soccer editor who gives the women's articles some attention too. Whether you decide to join or not, I hope you'll keep up your great work. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Flagicon in A-League articles

I noticed that you recently added flagicons in the infobox of all recent A-League club season articles. I ask if we can undo this addition and remove all flagicons from infoboxes in A-league articles. The original Template does not include, or endorse the exclusion of flagicons and I can not find any clubs articles outside the A-League with the inclusion. Also, it looks rather bulky and messy, and it is not really a necessary addition. I am happy to help remove the flagicons to create this consistency between the articles.--2nyte (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

While looking through the articles (in the process of creating the w-league season articles) i noticed that in 2013-14 the flagicons were partly included in some clubs season pages. checking on 2012-13, most of the clubs have the flagicons. it has no need of support from the template, why would you think that is necessary? --SuperJew (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's an unnecessary inclusion. The infobox should include brief/relevant information on the topic. I just think it looks messy and it is that vital for readers? We only need to state who the top goalscores is and the number of goals, just the general info.--2nyte (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind, but whatever decision you make, make sure to make it consistent over the season pages of at least this year and last year. --SuperJew (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Brisbane Roar 2013/14 undoing of edits

I notice that every time I make an edit to the 2013–14 Brisbane Roar season page, within a day of them being made you have either undone, reverted or changed my edits, some for no reason at all. Is there a reason for changing edits to the way you want it even if the info is correct? Protenpinner (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Protenpinner, I appreciate your commitment to Brisbane Roar. Notice I try to give a reason for my edits in the edit summary description. If you didn't understand something specific, you are welcome to bring it up here or on the article's talk page. --SuperJew (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

shelf

I think that this edit was mistaken. The link you provided is a derivation for the use of shelf not the term itself. So for use in this context, I have amended it to link to Wiktionary:shelf, if you have made any similar edits where the link to continental shelf is not the most suitable link, you might like to consider amending them to link to Wiktionary. -- PBS (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood football club membership

The reference you have given, dated 16 August 2013, represents Collingwood Football Club membership in the 2013 season, not the 2014 season. Each season's membership tally is separate from the previous, and does not carry over. As such, it is not correct to include the 80,000 number on the 2014 Collingwood Football Club season page, and I am again removing it.

Additionally, when you have a reference, please include it in the article, not in the edit summary. Aspirex (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds silly to me. The membership would not go under 80,000 in a year, and if it went down that much I am sure there would be an article about it on the Collinwood website, which I would see.

Another thing I wasn't sure about: what is the policy of using references in infoboxes?

--SuperJew (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The notion that you can assume the club's membership will not fall below 80,000 between last year is a violation of Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL. (The argument is easily disputable as well: who's to say that now that Collingwood's on-field performances are waning from where they were a few years ago when they were winning minor premierships, and that the club's potential membership is not limitless as there are only a certain number of Collingwood fans in the city, that these unprecedented membership numbers may not relax slightly and settle out in the high 70,000s? I don't know whether that will happen or not, but it sounds plausible enough).

Anyhow, the number 80,456 has nothing to do with the 2014 season. It is the 2013 season membership number. Put that number in 2013 Collingwood Football Club season infobox with the reference and it can stay there for all-time as an accurate reflection of that season. But it well established that each season's membership number is distinct from the previous one, and therefore the 2013 number cannot feature in the 2014 infobox. So, I'm going to remove it again. You simply don't have any policies on your side on this issue.

Now, you obviously feel that last year's membership number is important to this year's article, and I agree that it can set a useful context for describing the club's off-field situation leading into 2014. My suggestion is to writing a paragraph like: The club's membership slogan for 2014 is [insert slogan here]. The club enters the season after having signed a league-record 80,456 members during the 2013 season, and has set a target of [xxxxx] members for the 2014 season.[reference] Doing this in paragraph form allows you to make it very clear that you are distinguishing last year's membership number from this year's, and allows you to explain the context of the number and why it is useful for a 2014 preview.

The other thing you can do is find progress 2014 membership numbers, and include that in the infobox along with a date. (e.g. Membership: 25,000 as of 13 December 2013, or something like that). I don't personally like that – my preference is to keep Wikipedia low maintenance, so I only post final numbers rather than spending a lot of my time updating progress numbers – but so long as it's accurate I'll take no umbrage to it being there. Aspirex (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And to make it clear to you that I'm being constructive and not destructive here, I've gone into 2013 Collingwood Football Club season and updated the membership number for that season. Aspirex (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For all your work on the 2013-14 A-League National Youth League season page. You are doing a fantastic job there. Also, I hope this does not violate your message above... you do not have to reply to this at all. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) Also, Shabbat has gone out here in Israel so that's okay too. (Shabbat is from sunset on Friday, until the time when you can see three stars on Saturday night). --SuperJew (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats good. I was really hesitant here... keep up the good work mate. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Updating Playing Statistics for footballers

Hi,

I noticed when you updated Rashid Mahazi's number of games for Melbourne Victory, you didn't update the whole page, just the box on the top right, and not the statistics table. I have updated all, so there is nothing to worry about, but in the future when you want to update playing statistics of any professional athlete I recommend that you try and update all figures on the page, not just the top right box. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryboy (talk • contribs) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do try. I must of not noticed the table on his page. Thanks! --SuperJew (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I take that back. These tables are inconsistent between articles and are hard to update if not done on a regular basis. Also, I do not feel they add much to the article. If someone else wishes to waste his time on it, he may, but I am not going to. I've wasted enough, and it was removed, as it is not referenced enough (see "Ben Sigmund" section below) --SuperJew (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Try using Soccerway & Transfermarkt websites, they have all referenced data. In the case of Ben Sigmund: soccerway Sigmund & transfermarkt Sigmund. --Victoryboy (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ben Sigmund

Hi, I have removed the career statistics table for this player, because it is almost fully unreferenced and it is almost fully incomplete. It is also in the incorrect format, though I did start converting it before I realized it needed removing. Regards, GiantSnowman 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Only the Canterbury United section seems missing info, no? --SuperJew (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And I would like to know what is wrong with the formatting and what is the correct way? --SuperJew (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be missing two seasons for Christchurch, the whole of Canterbury, and most non-league appearances for all the other clubs. The correct format can be seen in this article. GiantSnowman 22:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

All is here for data soccerway Sigmund & transfermarkt Sigmund — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoryboy (talk • contribs) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

soccerway only has data for Wellington Phoenix and transfermarkt only has data for Wellington Phoenix and Auckland City. --SuperJew (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

		The Disambiguator's Barnstar
		The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators. This is for fixing 1541 ambiguous links during November 2013. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 21:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Wellington Phoenix

1. In the Appearances section, the players are ordered right now by number of appearances (without difference between starting, sub on and sub off). would it not be better to sort by total number of minutes? in the current situation, a player who played 3 full games will be under a player who came on for the last 5 minutes of 4 games.
2. In this edit you changed the team names in the tooltip to shortened versions, but as it is a tooltip, I think it would be better to keep the full names, no?

Hello,
Apologies for the very late response. You posted the above on my talk page a month ago so I thought I'd copy it here for easy reference. For point 1, the primary purpose of the table is to display the players with the most appearances in the season which is why it is ordered by that and not minutes. While players used as subs would rank higher than starters, even with significantly less minutes played, they still count as appearances which is relevant to records pages etc. For the tooltips, I wasn't really sure which would be the better option. It was more about trying to reduce the size that the section took up, mainly because the information is repeated several times and would still be clear enough for readers. However, I don't have a problem with you reverting it if you think it's best the way it was.

I would like to raise some points of my own for this page as well.

1. I don't agree with the use of the current Central Coast Colour usage as it is inconsistent with related A-League articles. I replied in the discussion, but after you had made the edits. The reason is because Gold Coast may not be around in the season articles, but they still appear in general A-League articles such as the all-time records page, which either makes both teams appear with similar colours, or makes Central Coast have different colours in different articles.
2. I think it is far more logical to have the games listed in chronological order rather than by their round number. It makes it very hard to see streaks in results and goals and cards (particularly when five yellows can result in suspensions for players) and the round number and citation already explain why the game would be in it's chronological position.
3. I don't understand why you are removing the yellow cards listed in the matchboxes either. It is relevant information and helps to show what the game was like; ie. whether it was clean, or there was ill-discipline etc etc. You could argue that that is displayed in the discipline table, however, the same can be said for goals, and the discipline table does not display the opposition cards.

O for Awesome (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

1. we had a discussion about this already.

2. did I change that? I don't remember...

3. It is the way it is done in all concise matchboxes (only goals and red cards). It is only in extended matchboxes (such as used in pages used for only one or two games) that yellow cards are shown, as well as lineups and substitutions.

--SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

Hi, per Template:Infobox football biography, |club-update= and |nationalteam-update= are the correct parameters, as opposed to |pcupdate= and |ntupdate=. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You sure? I saw someone changing them to pcupdate and ntupdate and quoted a wikipolicy, but I can't remember who or which policy. --SuperJew (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox datestamp

Hello, and thanks for trying to keep footballer pages up to date. Just to let you know, in case you weren't aware, that the datestamp field |club-update= is for a date or date/time that's unambiguously after the last match included in the stats. Just putting the bare date of the latest matchday means the reader has to make assumptions about whether the stats apply to before, during or after that match. Ok, they could make an educated guess that it meant after the game, but an encyclopedia shouldn't be making the reader guess. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand having a full date with time and timezone is cumbersome and not easy to read, therefore not helping the reader. --SuperJew (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of people would agree with that, though plenty more prefer the full timestamp, and if an article's been stable with that format it's probably not a good idea to try and change it without discussion at the article talk. In principle, using the date of a day after the last matchday included in the stats and before the next game the player played/could potentially play in – say, 10 December 2013 in the case of Mr Heskey's current appearances – would satisfy requirements both of precision and simplicity. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Or the template could be changed to "... correct as of match played on 8 December 2013", or in footy player articles we have "Playing statistics correct to end of Round 8, 2013 season." or "Playing statistics correct to end of 2013 season". Much clearer and easy to read! --SuperJew (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Premier league fixtures

We should not list or mention more than one fixture according to copywright laws. This could be read for instance here and has been mentioned on WT:FOOTY at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 82#La Liga fixtures copyright? recently. You can also look at the bottom at other clubs season articles which have a note to not list fixtures. QED237 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That is preposterous! it sounds exactly the same as copyright laws over simple objects which has been discussed in the past.

And if this is the case how is it that we do show the matches that have been played? aren't they copyrighted too?

--SuperJew (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is what it is, cant argue with the law. We can show results of played game but not mention more then one upcoming game. QED237 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RIDICULOUS! SuperJew (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wanderers youth

Hi, your recent edit on Western Sydney Wanderers FC added a number to youth player Jaushua Sotirio. Youth players do not have numbers, youth players may play for the senior team, but only if the player is signed to the senior team do they receive an official shirt number. That means although Jaushua Sotirio was assigned #26 when he made an appearance for the senior team, he isn't officially assigned to the number, any other youth player can 'unofficially' use the number.--2nyte (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)