User talk:JackalND

Infobox honours
Why did you revert my graphical edits of "Cristiano Ronaldo" and "Pepe (footballer, born 1983)"? I didn't see any explanation (this is usual on cs.wikipedia.org where I do come from). I am quite new to editing footballers on en.wikipedia.org (acutally new to editing on en.wikipedia.org at all, but not to cs.wikipedia.org, where I'm editing footballers, too) but I do insist on that my edits were useful. I've found proper sport templates later that I've started editing so my edits weren't done at once but I think the visual formatting is important also. I think the too dark background is non-suitable. Also, honours of Cristiano Ronaldo aren't chronologically ordered after your revert. Please, any next time you are reverting my edit, explain me, why are you doing so. I do respect rules of majority but I'm not aware of any ones for these situations. I'm glad if you taught me. JackalND (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why just link to France? That is really not needed. Those edits are not the standard way as it should be and look very odd. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From cs.wikipedia.org, I'm used to make links in infoboxes of everything possible. Regarding Republic of South Africa, the host of FIFA World Cup 2014, this country is called Jihoafrická republika in Czech, having an abbreviation of JAR; JAR (Jihoafrická republika is too long for infobox) isn't as common as France (mean unique formatting across all records). Also, I suppose infoboxes have as much data as possible. Considering this, in the honours section of footballer's infobox, there is quite enough space for three columns: kind of medal, year, and host. But if you insist on, I do accept it. However, you've reverted edits containing more changes, not only that one you've explained. What about the ordering, or orderings of honours? According to MOS (I've recently notified by User:Qed237), order in box should be chronological-ascending, whereas Pepe has an order of "2012, 2016", so not only Cristiano Ronaldo's ordering intervention was correct. I think your reverts weren't fair, including you've provided no explanation firstly. Since now, I'll be following the MOS pattern. By the way, are you an administrator? --JackalND (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

When you update the honours could you please follow our MOS (Manual of Style) for footballers, WikiProject Football/Players? It would be best for consistency across all articles if we use the standard. Qed237&#160;(talk) 20:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I'm very glad you've warned me. And could you guarantee that my edits following such rules won't be reverted, please? I'm looking forward to your further warnings. --JackalND (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can not make any guarantees that no one will revert you, I can not controll other editors. But if you use the player MOS you have something to support your edits if other editors disagree. You should also note that the MOS was updated a long time ago so there might be some new consensus I am not aware of. Qed237&#160;(talk) 20:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Regarding MOS, I have some reservations/questions about that: First, I do not see any (internal) links in the honours infobox sections whereas I do prefer them. I think every item in the box should be an internal link (if possible). Second, I do not see any national flags (but maybe it's due to no flag exists in the pattern). Remembering my edit of Santiago Cañizares, there was a national (Spain) flag in the initial revision. I suggest I'll take my steps according to MOS and my best good faith, so don't hesitate to contact me any time later. Every recommendation is welcomed. --JackalND (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, flags should be avoided in infoboxes if they are not needed, per WP:INFOBOXFLAG, so I think it is best without them. For example we dont have the flags when listing nationalteam above the honours section, just a link to the team. Regarding the links to the tournaments I dont see any problems with including them, one link to main tournament and one link to the year/season. I made an correction at Renato Sanches in this edit so you can see what I mean. That article now looks good in my opinion. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. You're right that infoboxes of footballers at en.wikipedia.org aren't full of colours like at cs.wikipedia.org (see e.g. Gerardo Martino, or Cristiano Ronaldo). Even when I like colours, even when I think they makes Wikipedia more popular, I do fully respect that there are other conventions at en.wikipedia.org, and I'm here to help. But it's interesting that a few footballers have honours at infoboxes filled at all. I suppose even en.wikipedia.org will be full of colours, in every record in footballers' infoboxes, it all without my interventions. --JackalND (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating the same link over and over which is also against MOS. I think the Ronaldo page is much clearer like it is now after my edit. If you disagree you may want to start a discussion at the Footy Project to get more input. Add the competition above and then just the won medal and the year. Kante4 (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree with your target you've marked here. Even if you are referring to MoS, you aren't providing any particular section of text, like User:Qed237 previously. So, I think the MoS for footballers has higher priority. I don't know what the Footy Project is, and I don't want to study it now (insufficient time) but even without considering it, I do insist on that my last version is more complying Wiki standards than your last revision of Cristiano Ronaldo, and I'm therefore asking you to revert you last edit to let my formatting be the final one (anyway, including the flag in such a case is officially undesirable). I suppose User:Qed237 will side with me in this dissension ( please, provide your opinion). Furthermore, it's very interesting that your are repeatedly overwriting my interventions of a single player (Cristiano Ronaldo) whereas I did tens of such edits last night. I'm afraid your behavior is unfair. Consider you haven't done the work with honours of UEFA Euro 2016 but you're attacking me, and consider I've conformed to MoS later, including doing a lot of work again and again (repairing all my previous edits). You do behave like the Cristiano Ronaldo's page is your property but it isn't the case. --JackalND (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can not just edit something, getting reverted and then say your edits are final. No, there needs to be a discussion where several editors are involved. And i just saw your edits on the pages i have on my watchlist, Ronaldo, Pepe, coentrao... So, either start a proper discussion or live with a revert. You can not just start editing and push your way through. Kante4 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, read all my discussion with User:Qed237 above. A certain thing is that I'm new to English Wikipedia editors but I'm quite long-established editor of Czech Wikipedia whereas I do not think that the rules are too much different. When you consider some, mainly better-known, footballers' pages at English Wikipedia, they all have generally the same data structure. This structure is described here: WikiProject Football/Players. As far as I know, you've provided only two arguments: First, repeating internal links is undesirable. Second, your visual formatting is better in you opinion. Repeating links isn't recommended by WikiProject Football/Players, OK, so, even if I've consulted this with User:Qed237, I'm about to accept that repeated links won't be present. But I'm enough sure that you aren't privileged to push your visual formatting through (mainly ordering according to gold/silver/bronze), this must adhere to WikiProject Football/Players (if here is at least one user to insist on it). Or tell me, where you have other people to want your version? I see only you and me, with WikiProject Football/Players to break our tie. Therefore, I do insist on that your interventions are unfair. I think this dissension is not a good subject to discussing (generally, only content is). Consider your only remaining argument is the look to your eye (try to persuade me that not). The Footy Project (even when I don't know what it is) is irrelevant for this in my opinion. Now, it's your turn of having arguments. Prove (correctly!) that you're right. Otherwise, you're scorning my work, and you're discouraging me from doing such, I think useful, edits in the future. I'm afraid it's repudiating the Wiki idea, and therefore I would need to think you're bad Wikipedia user. Finally, regarding the "final" word in my previous replica, I used it in the meaning of "last". --JackalND (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I can agree that linking to the same thing over and over again is WP:OVERLINK and linking only once is enough. Also a project MOS has to follow other guidelines that trumphs a simple project MOS. However, that is not ground for reverting, and to me it looks like JackalND is following MOS while Kante4 reverts to his preferred version without providing info from where he gets it from. I am more than happy to discuss at WT:FOOTY, but until there is any evidence that we should follow something else than the MOS I will restore the version of JackalND (without the links). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 14:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like a discussion aswell. Why not use the MedalCompetition parameter as it is presented and should be used. I don't get that. But ok, it's really not that important. Just saw a new user changing everything to his version, gets my attention directly. Kante4 (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

, How can you revert edit containing more changes (all described in edit summary) due to a single dissension without leaving the others? Additionally, you haven't explained why you do think that the reformatting wasn't correct (see WikiProject Football/Players).

, Special:Diff/729625969: This isn't described by WikiProject Football/Players. Don't you think it would be better to edit MoS first, then apply such a rule to a particular page? Considering this environment, when there is no specimen for writing footballers' pages, I'm refusing to continue doing edits. It's wasting my time, and very insulting/offending. Don't want to know what I think about you all, "wikipedians". Since now, I'll be again only reader. Can anyone explain me why my adding of UEFA Euro 2016 medal to Lucas Digne was reverted (twice)? And can anyone explain why it wasn't explained to me without requesting?