User talk:Qed237

Template:2014–15 Premier League table

Hi Qed.

Why are categories not included for the template? I see them included for prior PL table templates [1], for PL tables 10-11, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14. They seem to tie everything in together, so what's the issue? Thanks!--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: In templates categories should be added in the documentation (if it exists) otherwise it should be added within noinclude tags. Otherwise the pages the template is used on will also end up in that category, which they should not. For example '2014-15 Arsenal F.C. season' should not be in category 'Premier League tables' just because they use it. Qed237 (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay that def makes sense, and I see what you mean. So if I was to reedit them and place within the noinclude tags, then that would be appropriate and wouldn't show up on '2014-15 Arsenal F.C. season'? I can correct edits if that's okay?--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: If you add them together with the other categories it should be fine (look at the 2015-16 table that already has an other category). Later the categories may need to be corrected as I think Category:Premier League table templates perhaps should be a child to Category:Association football templates making the last one not needed. Qed237 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected it per your suggestion. I added both for now, and we can cleanup later if we do remove. One more thing I noticed for Template:2013–14 Premier League table was that it was also under Category:England football league tables, which I think is the child of Category:Association football templates. Seems to be some inconsistencies now between 13-14 and 14-15/15-16 between which ones are included.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Shreerajtheauthor: Yeah, it is good for now, but maybe we have to take a closer look later. Qed237 (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Will Keane

To be fair to User:Wutzwz, Will Keane is listed in Manchester United's first-team on their website, they just didn't include him in the announcement about squad numbers, presumably because he's currently out on loan. – PeeJay 20:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Okay I was not aware of that. Qed237 (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Loan move

In the infobox of a player is → team name (loan) a manual of style on loans or a consensus? TeaLover1996 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996: I believe it is both. Qed237 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@TeaLover1996: I believe it's a consensus, there isn't anything official in the manual of style about it, but it's just the way consensus has decided to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@TeaLover1996 and Joseph2302: It is in the player MOS from Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I stand corrected. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Libelous

Was this edit libelous, defamatory or a violation of the BLP policy? Just as it was reverted and I wondered. TeaLover1996 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) @TeaLover1996: I suggest you ask the editor in question. Qed237 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ICC table

Hey, quick question, you reverted my edit to the ICC table on the Manchester City season article, I am not sure why, there wasn't an edit summary so not sure what the reasoning is. The edits matched the main article. not a biggie, just wondering. Paul  Bradbury 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Just as a standard we never use that gold color for first place, just like we dont use it in league tables. Qed237 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, fair enough, its the colour they have on the main article. Do you think its worth putting a colour in or just leaving it off. Paul  Bradbury 16:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: Honestly it does not matter much to me, but gold seems a bit unneccesary for just a pre-season tournament. Not like they actually won anything notable. Qed237 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:2015 Belarusian Premier League table

Hello, Qed237.
About Template:2015 Belarusian Premier League table.
Page regulations_national_championship_2015.pdf. Button "Скачать" (Download).
Page 20, 13.3.
Online-translator from Russian to English
13.3. The team with the most points is the current and final standings above the teams that scored fewer points.
In case of equality of points if two or more teams, places in the League standings:
according to the results of the games between them (the number of points, number of wins, the difference of scored and conceded goals, number of goals scored);
at best the difference between scored and conceded goals in all matches of the championship;
for a greater number of wins in all matches;
for a greater number of goals scored in all League matches.
GAV80 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I found this source which may be the best one to use - UEFA Paul  Bradbury 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay, I will add that as a source and revert back to your order (but with goal diff before matches won and not the other way around like you had it?). Too bad it has to be downloaded, it would have been better if we could link directly to the pdf. Qed237 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbradbury: UEFA has had a lot of errors in their tables. Qed237 (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I wrote "6) Matches won; 7) Goal difference". I was wrong. Right "6) Goal difference; 7) Matches won". GAV80 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: If you want, you can check that it looks okay now. Qed237 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I saw. It's OK. Thank you. Will you update table with today's matches? Or will I update? GAV80 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: I usually look through all European tables in the very late evening/night to see if any needs updating so if you haven't I can do it, but it is up to you. Does not matter to me who updates it. Qed237 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I send letter to www.scoresway.com about season rules. They changed rules on their site. I changed link on page Template:2015 Belarusian Premier League table. GAV80 (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay great. I think we can actually use both as source. Qed237 (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Once again, really good work contacting scoresway, not many would go that far. Just a final question, when reading the document and translating it to english I believe I read something about play-off matches to decide champions, before the draw? I might be wrong and the document wont download at the moment so can t read it again, but it is possible that "play-off (only if deciding champion) should be included before the draw. Qed237 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: 13.3.1. When determining the first place at absolute equality of all specified indicators at two and more teams of the highest league the additional match or a tournament in one circle is appointed between these teams. 13.3.2. For other teams of the highest league and teams of the first league at absolute equality of all the specified place indicators in total standings are defined by a lot. GAV80 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: So for deciding champions (first place) there is a play-off match (according to 13.3.1) otherwise a draw? At least that is my interpretation. Qed237 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: You are right. For first place – play-off match, for not first place – draw. GAV80 (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@GAV80: Okay, so for consistency with the other tables (see User:Qed237/sandbox#Domestic leagues) then it should be "9) Play-off (only if deciding champion); 10) Draw." Qed237 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:IMPERFECT

You need to stop deleting stuff just because other editors didn't do it quite right. Per WP:IMPERFECT, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles". Obviously, if unsourced information is added to a biography of a living person, you can delete that to avoid legal issues, but if information is true and you know where to find a source to prove it, perhaps your time would be better spent by doing that instead of pissing people off by deleting their good faith, albeit imperfect, edits. – PeeJay 20:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: WP:BOOMERANG? Funny how this is coming from you who has hardly any skill of collaborative edits but has a habbit of insulting both IP's and editors in very inappropriate edit summaries. Sorry, but it is hard for me to listen do you when you have a habbit of pissing people off. It is not my burden to source edits from others. Qed237 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It may not be your job to find the sources, but it's certainly not your job to undo edits when you know full well that the content is accurate. And you're right, perhaps we're not so different, you and I, but I'm at least willing to admit when I'm wrong. – PeeJay 20:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, you know full well that I do as much good work around here as you do. You only have to look at the number of DYK, GA, FA and FL articles I've contributed over the years. How many of those have you done lately? – PeeJay 20:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I have not said you dont do any good work, have I? I know very well how much work you do, I would just appreciate a better "tone" instead of all cursing and name calling. You have been here way longer than me so you have most likely created more articles and been more involved with DYK, FA and so on, mainly because we work in different areas. I tend to do more updates to current sports events, different tables (league tables) and other similar edits. Qed237 (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I rather beg to differ: you say I have no skill at working collaboratively, when there is evidence to quite the contrary. Anyway, as I've said, unsourced edits to BLPs and obvious factual errors should always be deleted as soon as possible, and in cases of obvious vandalism it is my decision to berate the vandal mercilessly, but you don't need to undo edits just because a source hasn't been provided or because a timestamp wasn't updated; I mean, for goodness' sake, it's hardly worth the effort and is more than likely only going to start an edit war! I'm not claiming to be a perfect editor myself – far from it – but I recently found WP:IMPERFECT myself and I thought we could both stand to learn from it. – PeeJay 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Sure, I will put it on my 'to do'-list to read it. Qed237 (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Instead of writing "You need to stop...." that immediately sounds agressive, you could always try "Hi, regarding 2015–16 Manchester United F.C. season I would appreciate if....". You know very well I am not a vandal so you could try and talk to me as a normal person and assume good faith. Qed237 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, message received. By all counts, the "Undo" button has a rather adversarial quality to it, and I think we could all do with learning that just because someone reverts our work doesn't mean we're enemies. – PeeJay 21:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yes, and sometimes people thinks undo and revert is the same, but in an undo those things that did not need to be reverted may not have been undone. Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In which case it is often better not to "undo" but simply to edit the older version to include anything useful from the newer version and leave out the negative contributions. – PeeJay 21:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Displaying of matches

Could you provide a link to the copyright laws you cite as the reason for no more than one match being displayed? I can't find anything. Under which country's juristiction, might I add? I struggle to see how it's the UK, as several sources have the entire list. Spa-Franks (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Spa-Franks: If sources have the full list, it's probably because they've paid for a licence to display the fixtures from Football DataCo. Wikipedia can't afford those licences, since we're "The Free Encyclopedia", so we have to stick with what we can legally get away with, which is only the next fixture. – PeeJay 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Spa-Franks: The right to the fixtures is owned by Football DataCo and protected under British Copyright Laws. Everyone that wants to display fixtures must pay a license fee, and wikipedia as a free media can not afford any license fees (or court costs if we display the fixtures). More info can be read in this link from inbrief (a helppage for law issues) and they explain that one upcoming match, but not more, can be displayed. Qed237 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki god

People like you drive me crazy. Who put you in charge of Wikipedia? Why are you sending threatening messages to me and others about what we put online? I enjoy adding little known but true facts about relatively obscure people and you keep coming along and deleting them like an annoying little scrat. You aren't in charge of the Internet you know. Man, I hate nerds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.19.181 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Content on wikipedia should follow wikipedia guidelines and we cant add unsourced contents to biographies of living persons. It must be sourced. This is wikipedia guidelines and not my own choice. And please stop the name calling. Qed237 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox Player Info

Hi, would it be against any policies if I was to create a players infobox and put what I want into it? Would it be a problem? TeaLover1996 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In an article yes, in personal sandbox I dont think there is a problem. Qed237 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2013 FIFA U-17 World Cup

What do not you like my circuit at the World Cup to 17 years, the World Cup hockey and ice hockey in the Olympics, because they are more modern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.57.129 (talk • contribs)

I see no motivation or reason to change from the old version that has been used for a long time. Qed237 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also IIHF determines standing based on group stage position and not group stage record. Qed237 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I am counted goals for and goals against,0 goal difference in 2013 U-17 World Cup FIFA and 2015 IIHF WC. And this tables more beautiful.

I'm just very sorry that my work is not assessed, although I have not yet forgotten the password from the old account, I was very much respected, and now you hate me, but you used to respect me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.57.129 (talk • contribs)

Goals for and goals against it not most important, IIHF goes after group position first. Per WP:BRD please establish consensus before making such a major change. And believe me, I dont hate you, this is about the content. Qed237 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominating a page for Deletion

Hi there, I have found a page about a professional footballer and the page is 'List of International Goals scored' by a player. In order to delete the page which category or tag do we use. In this case I know WP:GNG does not apply. Does WP:NFOOTBALL apply? Or any other would do great.Cheers!!! NextGenSam619^t@lk 14:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

3 v 2 is not a consensus

I'm not sure what compelled you to refer to that miniature discussion as a consensus, but it isn't. Stop brandishing that word as an excuse. There is no consensus, so I don't know why you're claiming that there is. Italia2006 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Italia2006: There was 5 v 2 and if you dont agree open a new discussion. Lets keep this at one place, either new discussion at Footy or the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 WC Hockey

Why you delete group A-B content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.187.199.23 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Could not see any source for those groups. Not a single source in that article say what teams will play in Group A and Group B respectively. Qed237 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

http://pribalt.info/hokkei/kubok-mira It is Russian source,but you can translate this text,OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.187.199.23 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can translate that but I am not sure it can be considered a reliable source. Qed237 (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/u-s---canada-reportedly-grouped-together-for-2016-world-cup-of-hockey-141904294.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) It is reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.110.36.93 (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You really need to start talking and stop reverting. Nothing is confirmed and the yahoo source just say 'reportedly' and not that it has been confirmed. You can not add rumours. Qed237 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not rumours!!!