Template talk:Tamworth F.C. squad

Sorting
I sorted the template by surname, as is precedent of numberless squads, such as Argentina Squad 1930 World Cup or Yugoslavia Squad 1950 World Cup. Sorting by position to show additional information is an invalid choice since a template is for purposes of navigation only. The templates are, by default, sorted by squad number. The introduction of player positions is an adaptation made only in the event of squads without numbers. Additional information can be found on the club article, which is the first point of call for information for everybody. Regrettably I will revert to my last edit. slυмgυм [ ←→ &#93; 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is relativly annoying as I have worked very hard on making the Tamworth page, a page full of information and for me Sorting the template by position looks the buisness and it is so annoying when some person who has had nothing to do with any of the edit turns up and starts throwing his weight around, also I added an extra player José Veiga, who has resigned with the club for next season and I notice that my edit from yesterday way just changed back, and deleted him off the templete, thus depriving people of official information, with is a terrible shame with this site been an information site, and it appears that certain people don't care about this and are more interested in making there templates the way they like them, even though they have made no single contribution to the template what so ever Stew jones 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Editors should be careful not only to pay attention to edit summaries but also fill in their own edit summaries appropriately. This shows no mention of the addition of Veiga, so I can offer only a small apology for not noticing it. There is a message for users making use of the 'undo' facility which reads: If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message.
 * I can also suggest WP:OWN as further reading.
 * My motives for an alphabetical sort are to establish continue the precedent of a uniform style of template which is commonly used throughout. I won't revert this time, Stew jones, because you have had the decency to listen to my reasoning, but I ask you to consider other templates, not just Tamworth's. It's better to have the templates all sorted by position or all sorted by name, not all sorted by name except Tamworth because Stew jones thinks it looks the business.  slυмgυм [ ←→ &#93; 18:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it looks the business too! much better than that stupid alphabetical way. Jonesy702 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)