User talk:LTFC 95/Archive 1

Infobox football biography layout
Hello. Just a note about infobox documentation. It's standard procedure right across Wikipedia for infobox documentation pages to list parameters down the page rather than across, for clarity. But that doesn't mean we have to copy that exact layout when we use the infobox. Some editors do prefer it, others prefer to group the stats for each club in one row across the page. So long as the details for each club are grouped together, either vertical or horizontal format is acceptable, and where a particular article has been stable with one format, it's probably best to leave it alone.

What some editors do and shouldn't, is group all the clubs together, followed by all the years, then all the apps and goals. If you come across one like that, it should be changed. There was a relevant but brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 90. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I'm used to following standard procedure, however I will take this onboard. I will continue to change the instances where clubs, years, apps and goals are grouped together like you mentioned which I've been coming across a lot lately. Thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Matt Macey
If you're saying that 2011–12 was the start of Macey's first-team career at Bristol (debatable, but that's another discussion for another time perhaps), then fine; but you need to update the infobox to reflect that and still include 2012–13 season in the career stats table (as it's long-established that once a senior career starts a player cannot go back to youth, and it looks as if he is missing a season from his career). Same goes for the 2013–14 Arsenal season... GiantSnowman 20:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Macey was offered a professional contract at the end of the 2012–13 season, but never signed it, hence he was out of contract with Bristol Rovers when he joined Arsenal in October 2013. Therefore, Bristol Rovers should not be in the senior career section of the infobox. I will correct this now. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But now the infobox and career stats don't match up. I suggest we remove the 2011-12 BR season from the career stats (which I suggest you do; being on the bench once is not indicative of a senior career starting), and also add 2013–14 Arsenal in youth career in infobox as well? GiantSnowman 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox and career stats match up now. As Macey played for the under-21 team in 2013–14, it makes sense to add Arsenal to the youth career section which I've done. I've removed Bristol Rovers from the career stats table also. Thank you. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much better now, thanks! GiantSnowman 17:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert
Hey, sorry for that. It was a mistake and i never wanted to do that. It just "happened" somehow, my apologies and sorry again. Kante4 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. I've done it before accidentally. It would be better if the reverting vandalism option of twinkle asks the user to confirm if they want to revert the edit. Anyway, no harm done. Thank you. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we get some input in resolving an edit dispute?
Hello LTFC95. I am hoping that you can lend some assistance. Me and user GiantSnowman need assistance in resolving an edit dispute concerning the kit section that was in the Nigerian national football team article. He removed it citing WP:NOTGALLERY. I disagree with his interpretation and I have shared my reasons on the talk page at WikiProject Football. We request the input of members of this project in order to resolve this issue. Your assistance would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks! unak  1978  16:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Fraser franks
Hello, this is Dan head of media at Stevenage FC. Fraser's agent has asked that some of his information be corrected, e.g Height, honours etc. Every time I go to edit and make the changes your user reverts them. They are 100% facts so would appreciate if you could allow them to be corrected.

Good luck in the playoffs ;) Sfcboro (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

David Edwards (footballer)
Yes I have now noticed a small difference between the two photos so thanks for clarifying that. 86.161.5.70 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Andre Grey
Thanks for that, I was not aware that some long ref names were found elsewhere in the article. Iggy (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Southern League
I saw you changed the updater template, but not Southern Football League or Southern League. Best to make sure usage is consistent across all articles! Cheers, Number   5  7  19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was attempting to change Division One West to Division One South before updating those, but I couldn't change the updater because Division One South has not been added to ENGLs. I have made a request at the talk page. Many thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

John Murphy
Any chance you can help expand this stub about a former Luton player? Thanks! GiantSnowman 18:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have expanded with the information I currently have. I have a couple of books, one of which I was hoping to use to add further information, except it only covers players from the Football League years. I am missing one book from my collection. Once I have that, maybe I can expand further. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! GiantSnowman 08:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Leon Barnett
Hi LTFC, I've been looking at Leon Barnett today with the idea of nominating the page for GA. I've given the article a substantial opening section and updated recent information on his condition as well as tweaked some other minor issues but the core of the article was certainly done by yourself. Would you like to come in on a co-nomination? Kosack (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would be glad to. Thank you for expanding and cleaning up the article. I got a bit carried away with some of the content which I recognise now with more editing experience was not notable. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, you've done the vast majority of the leg work on this one and I think it'll pass quite comfortably. I've set up the nomination so just a matter of waiting for a willing reviewer now. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will be sure to help if there are any concerns. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Leon Barnett
Thanks for the collab on that one. Most of the work was yours though, so great job! Kosack (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer your question
First of all, good day to you. I'm removing accessdates when there is a date field that is populated. Having the access date is redundant in that situation. Think of it like this: When we go about our activities on WP, a lot of the time we are solving problems. So think of I time when an access date helped you solve a problem. Can you do that? I can't. So in terms of being redundant and in terms of that parameter really not providing any information that helps me solve problems I have chosen to remove them as redundant.

Oh, one more thing. There's actually more to it than that, but I really don't want to type out every thing that I'm thinking. Too much work. That is the short answer though. Take care, Dawnseeker2000  09:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Good day to you too. As per WP:ACCESSDATE, we should be using an accessdate to help other contributors know "when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article". This is particularly important for WP:FOOTBALL articles which require regular updates to statistics. When contributors update statistics, it is useful to update the accessdate to help other contributors know that the source has been checked when updating the statistics. We often encounter situations where contributors do not check the source when updating statistics, leading to incorrect updates. I also find accessdates helpful because urls can often change which can cause deadlinks. I periodically check reference urls in case they have changed to avoid such a situation and I look at the accessdate to know when it was last checked.


 * I could probably think of other examples, but these two reasons in particular are occasions where accessdates are important. Kind regards, LTFC 95 (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Alright, I'll abandon that approach. Thanks for the clear explanation. Dawnseeker2000  15:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Help request
Hi LTFC95, I saw you have edited pages involving Luton Town and I am currently working on a page about Tom Nolan a football freestyler from the town. I was hoping you could review the page and feedback any changes you would recommend? No worries if not. The link is - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Nolan_(freestyle_football) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnfan99 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverting my edit
Hi ! I saw you reverted my edit on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. I was unable to locate any duplicates of the link I added besides the one in the infobox. The Wikipedia Guideline you cited (MOS:REPEATLINK) says that "link[s] may be repeated in infoboxes." As the link would have only been repeated in an infobox, this would be an exception to the rule. Was there another reason you removed the link, or may I re-add it? HouseBlaster (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I reverted your edit was because the link appears in the first sentence in the lead: "In the run up to the next United Kingdom general election, various organisations are expected to carry out opinion polling to gauge voting intention." I hope this explains my reasoning. LTFC 95 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It does! 100%, I agree. When I searched with control + F, nothing besides the infobox came up, so I assumed it was only in the infobox! My bad. HouseBlaster (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies
I never meant to indicate your behavior was toxic. I have clarified my remarks. --dashiellx (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying your remarks. I understand your reasons for wanting infoboxes to be consistent. However, as explained to me in the past, we don't have to copy the exact layout in the template documentation. It is a matter of preference and it is best not to change an article which has an established format. If one of the parameters is required in the future, it can simply be added at the relevant time and removed when no longer needed. With some WP:FOOTY infoboxes, the order of parameters is considered to be important, but I don't think this is the case with club articles, as you have found out by the responses of other editors. Don't let this experience affect your desire to contribute to the project. We don't always necessarily agree with consensus, however, sometimes we have to compromise to resolve a dispute. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players
Hello!

Regarding your edit here, where you tell me to refer to WP:FOOTY/Players#Career statistics, on top of the page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players) says the following: ''This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, this layout is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea.'', which clearly means I am not obliged to not close the sentences without dots when they end and need one, and I am not obliged to not use "on" before dates if I think I have to, but thanks anyway for the reference. Besides, I do many of these edits by default, because I have grammar and syntax extensions on...

By the way, thank you for your contribution to updating football statistics! Keep it up!

Kind regards! Nialarfatem (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Templates
I suggest you look back at the season articles and stop leaning on what you are used to using. No sodding idiot from outside of the indoctrinated can easily understand the wiki table and the Template is considerably easier to use and far more information is contained in it and is also easier on-screen reading, all things which go against using a complex and clunky table which no one outside of the inner-wiki-circle can edit.

Also, check the sources some of them have depreciated for the match reports.

Finally you have thrown around some claimed consensus. Do better. Link to the actual discussion. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, this is only your opinion and a clear consensus is required to justify replacing the wikitables. The template you are advocating violates MOS:COLLAPSE and for this reason it should not exist, regardless of it being easier to use. One format including far more information than the other is also not a sufficient argument. We only need the information in the table that is relevant to the club which the season article is about. Details about opposition goal scorers can be included in the prose, as has been done in this article. Statistics should not be excessive, see WP:NOTSTATS. Regarding your request for consensus, I suggest you read this recent discussion.


 * I have started a discussion about creating a new template to help users who find editing wikitables difficult as this is long overdue. Hopefully the discussion will be successful and determine a consensus for the information to be included in a new template. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)