User talk:9XY

9XY, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi 9XY! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: text hindering clarity[edit]

What do you mean? The text says he was caretaker manager until March 2019. It is now October 2019. Anyone who reads that as though he is still caretaker manager might need to take some remedial English classes. – Pee Jay 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I mean since it doesn't say he's a full-time manager in that box, people might assume he's a caretaker for the entire period. Although the 'until March 2019' is there, the text about him being caretaker takes the "limelight" away from his being full-time. In some way, it's a bit of WP:WEIGHT. 9XY (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have to mention the fact that he was briefly the caretaker manager somehow. I would suggest that since his dates in the left-hand column are left open, the current text is enough to indicate that only the initial few months of his tenure were as caretaker and now he has the job permanently. Of course there is scope for reading it differently, but I think that's only a marginal view and there shouldn't be any issues with leaving it as it is. – Pee Jay 07:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Yes but if you look at the three other occupied boxes of the Notes column, they're all not full-time managers. Ole is the first one to be a full-time manager and have a prior different managerial role. Just showing 'caretaker' with the date doesn't really emphasize the fact he had become a full-time manager after his caretakership. It's subtle but I believe since this is the first case of that, the text doesn't help provide clarity to the fact. 9XY (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how does it help clarity to remove from the table all mention of his caretaker spell? Even if I were to concede your point, it doesn't help anyone to obscure the detail that he was originally appointed in an interim capacity. – Pee Jay 18:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I think full-time > interim, so it should be prioritized ahead of the latter, which includes obscuring the detail. Personally I'd prefer to make that table only for full-timers, with some prose below the table mentioning the others. But if we're to include the others in the table, adding a tick-box column (or something similar like 'yes/no') next to Notes indicating if the manager was a full-timer or not, would be the next best thing, IMO. 9XY (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: are you okay with adding another column using the tick-box design? That way full-time roles are shown clearly. 9XY (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even slightly. Tick boxes are not particularly aesthetically pleasing. I don't see any reason to add a new column. It should be taken as read that all managers listed are full-time unless otherwise stated, which is the case at the moment. – Pee Jay 11:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: then how do you suggest we make the fact Ole became a full-time manager after his caretaker stint become more visible? Because at the moment the occupancy of the box noting his caretakership is making it his newer role less obvious. 9XY (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the fact that he is currently in the role and the Notes column says he was only caretaker until March. Thanks. – Pee Jay 11:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: How would you differentiate it from, for example, Ryan Giggs? Giggs' box shows he had been a player-manager but people can't tell if he'd also been a full-time manager because there's nothing clarifying it. The emptiness of boxes is the only indicator of full-time roles. If we're going to keep a full-time manager (Ole)'s box occupied, normal people cannot tell if he had been only a caretaker or both. The date does very little to help. Sometimes people may think the lack of a date is caused by the unavailability of information. 9XY (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps what we need to do is add the word "caretaker" to Giggs' notes and the word "present" to Solskjaer's years (which is recommended per WP:PRESENT). – Pee Jay 12:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: I made a draft, check it out and let me know which one you think is best. 9XY (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First one or maybe third, except you don't need to say "not full-time" if it says "interim". But really the first one. Anyway, don't ask me, raise it on the article talk page. You're literally the first person ever to have an issue with this, so I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, but you need to get others' opinions, not just mine. – Pee Jay 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: What about #2? Move the non-full-time managers to a separate row. I think that is a great compromise. You're the one having an objection to my edit and others may not, so I am discussing it with you to find a solution. 9XY (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we're discussing it doesn't mean I have to agree, and since I don't agree with you that #2 is better, you might be better off canvassing other opinions. #1 or #3 are best. – Pee Jay 06:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3: Okay. Can I copy your comments to the talk page? 9XY (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. – Pee Jay 10:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing multiple edits[edit]

For example, in FIFA Ballon d'Or, it is not necessary to undo each of the edits; from the edit history, you can undo a "diff" (difference between two revisions), or you can just select the last good version and edit it. In either case, the edit summary will not be generated automatically, so you should describe what you are doing. If you need clarification, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification, for example, at the Teahouse. If you ask for clarification on this page, I may not notice it, as my watchlist has over 10,000 pages. Please {{ping}} me, and I'll likely notice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: ok thanks! 😸 9XY (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expansion of Liverpool F.C. regarding 6th Champions League title[edit]

@Rhys Mayall and Barton Dave: I get what you both are saying about recentism but this addition does not affect the balance too much because it's brief and short. It is common to talk about recent achievements in the lead so I wrote a little on the Barcelona comeback which is a huge for a club that hadn't won the Champions League since 2005 before this. Although I think this is something significant to write about in the lead, I am not going to bother about it because not much is written about the previous decades as well. However, I plan to write about the Barcelona comeback in the history section noting it as the "greatest comeback in the history of the Champions League", and reinstate the repositioning of the '1964 red shirt' paragraph that I believe you both were too lazy to manually restore after undoing the addition. Do you have an objection with that? 9XY (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I’m not sure it belongs in the history section, for while history is more detailed than the lead (which only gives a brief summation of the body), it’s still very concise. It would certainly belong in the 2019 UCL Final article (see the 2005 UCL Final article which includes Miracle of Istanbul). A featured article tends to have higher standards than others, meaning it has to pass through all the various, stringent policies (undue weight, NPOV etc.) Post edit; just checked and it is detailed in the 2019 UCL Final, and is labelled “one of the greatest”, which is probably the right wording. It’s often very difficult to label anything “the greatest” unless it’s widely considered so. Personally (and declaring my own bias as a Liverpool fan) I’d rank the 4–0 over Barcelona the second greatest CL comeback behind the 2005 Final. Barcelona themselves came from 4 down against PSG to win 6–1 (albeit with the help of two questionable penalties). Rhys Mayall (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I need some help with a draft.[edit]

I noticed you contributed significantly to Nick Mira's article.

I have a draft for fellow Internet Money producer KC Supreme that keeps getting denied from admins that don't understand the niche. Was hoping you could help me out since the page and sources are very similar to Nicks, and you understand the niche and collective.

here is the draft in question.

Draft:KC Supreme 166.70.242.243 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]