User talk:Kareldorado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Hello Kareldorado, and Welcome to Wikipedia!New-Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Kareldorado, good luck, and have fun.Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the official welcome at my start, Luke! I will leave this message as a guide. Even though I still feel quite a newb after nearly 3 months of activity, I gained some experience and surely found the enthousiasm to make edits in Wikipedia. Kareldorado (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Great job on the article so far! :)

But just to inform you, I have some more ideas and there are still a lot of stuff to do regarding the team:

Also, an important remark: I initially used to look at the info available on the rsssf website which seems complete, but recently the kbvb has presented a list of all red devils (http://www.belgianfootball.be/nl/alle-rode-duivels), where it seems they are NOT counting the matches at the 1920, 1924 and 1928 olympics. I've sent them a question why, as fifa counts these as full internationals. I did count these matches when creating List of Belgium national football team hat-tricks and Progression of Belgium association football goalscoring record. How will we proceed with this as long as the kbvb does not count these matches? :s

Finally, an easier one, we also need a template such as Template:England national football team to link al these pages together and maybe sort out all the categories too.

Anyway, if you're interested, pick some loose end to work from and enjoy! :) --Pelotastalk|contribs 10:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Divock Origi[edit]

Hi Kareldorado, divock origi made his competitive international debut for belgium v luxembourg and came on as a substitute for 29mins, who do you keep reverting my change? - --Thedorigi (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)thedorigi 06/09/14--Thedorigi (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hazard: a Muslim?[edit]

Hi, my information on Eden Hazard was correct and I'll repost it with a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Pro22 (talkcontribs) 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a reliable primary source, go ahead and use it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, new user. That (Most likely) Muslim guy has made an edit to Hazard's homepage again, claiming he's a Muslim and using a very dubious (probably copy and pasted from Express) Daily Mail article as his source. Eden has NEVER claimed to be, or even inferred to be a Muslim, and most likely is irreligious. Unfortunately, I'm a pretty new user myself and I can't make edits to a semi-protected article just yet, if I could, I would. So please, I implore you to remove it. (Side Note : Isn't there a mechanism to stop trolls from making unreliable edits to his wiki page?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exxcalibur808 (talkcontribs) 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I also feel pretty confident he is not Muslim, and a couple of times I reverted his changes. However, there is such a thing as a "three times revert rule" per day: you can get punished if you personally revert three times someone's (+/-) same edit on a single day. So, all I could do was taking this case to a page about edit warring to have someone else's opinion on it. That third person (Swarm) indicated on the Eden Hazard talk page that we should base the discussion on verifiability. Something you CAN do (and I invite you to do so) is discussing this issue further on Eden Hazard's talk page as well, section "Muslim? Probably not.". As a new user, make sure to sign your quotes with four tildes (~), so we know it's you. We have the bad luck that Daily Mail and Express both briefly mentioned this. In my humble opinion these two cannot really be regarded as reliable sources: they're popular press (tabloids) and don't tell why he would be Muslim. In Belgian press you cannot find an association between 'Hazard' and 'Muslim'. Kind regards, Kareldorado (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Belgium Football National Kit Team[edit]

can you see the article? i did also the goalkeeper kits. --KoreanDragon (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ok! --KoreanDragon (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

well, i use Paint.Net --KoreanDragon (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


i will see some photos before --KoreanDragon (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. (...) Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Kareldorado (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belgium national football team results – 1910s, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint-Ouen, County Ground and William Moore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Paraguay at the FIFA World Cup) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Paraguay at the FIFA World Cup, Kareldorado!

Wikipedia editor OccultZone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Massive article. Figure out, what is the problem with your Citation/reference no.2.

To reply, leave a comment on OccultZone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanowa[edit]

Please do not remove other people's comments, as you did here and here. If you believe those users to be socks, leave a note under their !votes or report them to an administrator or to WP:SPI but don't just remove them. Since you have argued in favour of keeping the article, I'm sure you can see how it could be perceived as a conflict of interest for you to be removing !votes favouring deletion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Ok, I will never do this again! I only left out the sock-like comments, but will leave a note next time then. Kareldorado (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It's appreciated. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake was no advise to you after my tag on article but you are always wellcome in my talk page: you are a gentleman certainlly. Regarding watches companies we have different ideas but this is not a problem for to make a tandem in future, if you want. Best wishes--Puccetto (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed my opinion in voting's discussion. Good luck and enjoy yourself--Pagoprima (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, upcoming days I will see if I can make some more suggestions for the Breil article. Kareldorado (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Buscemi (DJ)[edit]

No problem Kareldorado. All constructive contributions are welcome. What's important is that we have a more comprehensive coverage of all articles including Dutch and Belgian artists which you did by creating pages for the artists. Fixing of appearance or other presentation matters can always be fixed as long as the article is there. In any case, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort after all and everybody pitches in as much as they can. I realise the table was a copy paste from Dutch with basic translation done. But its perfectly alright to do so. things get fixed later. werldwayd (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, thanks for the comment! Kareldorado (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Vincent Kompany as Captain[edit]

I'm a little confused how many times Vincent Kompany has been captain now. I just incremented it by 1 (from 22 to 23) after the match against Tunisia, but was he not also captain in the match against Sweden? I'm asking because I notice Template:List_of_captains_of_the_Belgium_national_football_team had not been edited since 26 May. Or did that edit on 26 May already include the match against Sweden on 1 June? Or perhaps the 22nd was first for the match against Luxemburg, and then changed to count for the one against Sweden after the one against Luxemburg was ruled unofficial? If none of the above, I assume the number needs another increment, for the match against Sweden. I made the edits under the assumption that it was correct, though. Sygmoral (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, well, the unofficial match against Luxembourg sure made counting confusing here and there, thanks for checking it so carefully! To make it clear: it was 21 before Luxembourg and two official matches were played afterwards. Today it is 23, indeed, I left the "22" at "22" in the table after the match against Sweden since I had heard by then that the encounter against Luxembourg was unofficial. So, your correction at the Records page is also good, but I will put Kompany and Wilmots in the same cage. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S.: Nice music clip on YouTube! Kareldorado (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Nft[edit]

Hello, when using this template we are supposed to substitute it, meaning we should write it out as {{subst:Nft}}, as is explained at Template:Nft. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fellaini afro[edit]

I'm just pointing out that Marouane Fellaini did shave off his famous afro and why did you revert my edit? Because it is a notable fact that Fellaini is not only known for his playing, but his huge afro 64.231.203.156 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

He was well-known for his afro, I agree, but he didn't lose a limb - besides, he can let it grow back (so I doubt about the current notability). If you want to keep that part, at least I would add a reference and a phrase like "after x years, he got rid of his famous afro" Kareldorado (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Spain at the UEFA European Football Championship) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Spain at the UEFA European Football Championship, Kareldorado!

Wikipedia editor Romtam just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great article!

To reply, leave a comment on Romtam's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kareldorado. You have new messages at Romtam's talk page.
Message added 11:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Romtamtalk 11:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request[edit]

Please see the notes at Special:Diff/621345472

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Kareldorado. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for enabling it, xaosflux! Kareldorado (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Nepal Barnstar Award[edit]

BoNM - Nepal Hires.png The Nepal Barnstar of National Merit
Thank you for creating new player stubs relating to Nepalese football. It really helps! Hope to see you around! Ayoopdog (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Emery Bayisenge, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good that you made me aware of it. I added a reliable source now. Kareldorado (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm a tricky one. Some leagues have rules on minimum appearances in order to earn a winner's medal. Do you have appearance stats that showed he played in a majority of games? The honours aren't mentioned on his Soccerway profile; that is usually a good site for honours. GiantSnowman 17:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know about the winner's medal minimum appearances, good you tell me. Often I tend to take Soccerway and/or National Football Teams as background (usually the second one) to check whether a player won the national league or cup. However, in several leagues there is more than just one league and one cup to be challenged, so I tend to look to the Achievements-section of the club he played with for certainty. Anyway, I will try to be more careful. Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Great, if you need any more help or advice just post on my talk page and I'll be happy to help! GiantSnowman 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!  Wifione Message 10:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Belgium nft source[edit]

Dear Kareldorado,
I am finally settled back home. I am now looking through my library to find the source for Belgium's national team article. I should soon send you an e-mail with an attached file (probably pdf) with the material.
Thank you for the wait. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this! I was about to write something on your talk wall, I thought you would have returned weeks ago. Till soon and already gracias for the efforts, Kareldorado (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have the document in the pdf file, but cannot attach it with the Wikipedia e-mail. I'll send you an e-mail, so please answer back to it so that I can attach the file. Henshaw wrote a wonderful 3-page history of Belgium, which is not much (when compared with others) but is still of great quality.--MarshalN20 Talk 19:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Done, I sent you a mail and even another one for certainty. Kareldorado (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to P18 (band) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [[Couleur Café]] (1999, 2002))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Couleur Café, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Off The Record and Ciocarlia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Hi, I know you actively edit and update the Belgium national football team page, and great work on it by the way! So I wanted to bring this question/comment to you as you are the main editor on the page. The last sentence of the lead section is about the joint top-scorers for the national team: "While Bernard Voorhoof and Paul Van Himst share the goalscoring record, with a tally of 30 conversions each."

I'm all for using synonyms for words so we don't overuse words like score or goal, etc. But I think there is a better way to say "with a tally of 30 conversions each." To me, conversions are more for scoring penalty kicks or for getting a first down in American football rather than a goal-scoring record. Let me know what you think and keep up the great work! Rupert1904 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks in two ways for this message! (Namely for the first sentence and for all the rest.) I totally agree about the "conversions" thing, and I was a little surprised that nobody else made this comment earlier. :) I thought that it might sound natural enough that goalscoring opportunities are "converted". However, I agree that it is a lot more logical to use it only in the context of American football or in case of a penalty kick in association football. You are totally right, the reason I try to find alternatives is that reading 1000 times the words "match", "player" and "goal" gets quite boring. I'll make an exception for this one. You too, keep up the good work! Kareldorado (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Completely agree. I hate to see goal and match overused in football pages. Thanks for the consideration and changing the wording! Cheers! Rupert1904 (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Radja Nainggolan[edit]

Hi there KEl, from Portugal,

I only tried to insert a source that was not a mere link (like NFT.com) and was at the same time an official source (in this case from an official web of one of the participants in the final). You reverted me, OK, I only tried to arrange the display now (i.e. you don't need the numbers, especially when it's (1) or (2)).

Happy editing, cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, and I also appreciate that you wanted to added a better reference. The reason I put "Germinal Beerschot" instead of "Beerschot" is because the club's name changed from the first in the other after Nainggolan left, but with the date of the cup win and the club as mentioned in the infobox there will be few confusion. Keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I agree the Cup is a lot more than the final. Unhappily there was not yet an article about the Cup season so I linked to the final as you did. Kareldorado (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Man, I definitely think we need a better ref for his cup win (but I won't touch anything, awaiting your reply), now NFT.com is being used to reference left and right in his article, I think it's too much if you ask me. Of course, if none are available in the Dutch-speaking internet, I doubt BBC Sport or ESPN FC will have a match report of a Belgian Cup final from TEN YEARS ago :(

Cheers --84.90.219.128 (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Dutch Wikipedia, apparently he didn't feature in the final. He also didn't play a competition game with Beerschot's first team in that season. Maybe it is better to do away with the Cup in his palmares - I have no firm arguments to say that he somehow would be part of the cup winning team. Kareldorado (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Standard Liege[edit]

Hey pal. I'm trying to make the English version of Standard Liege a decent page. It had no references, a lot of the links to honours were incorrect and it had no history section whatsoever. It's really difficult though because the official Standard website has a terrible history section, I've also been trying to add some info from the French page. Do you know any resources I could use to expand the page? Such a shame that the club doesn't have a good English page because they have so much tradition. Thanks for any help! Rupert1904 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, good idea, after all Standard is one of the "big three" in Belgium, together with Anderlecht and Club Brugge. In case you have limited knowledge of French and Dutch, there are still a couple of things I could recommend to expand the body and/or referencing:
  • Standard website in French and French Wikipedia + Google Translate = a rough impression on what's important for the English page. Caution needed of course, but most important events and people should pop out.
  • The user MarshalN20 disposes of a book in English about World Soccer written by Richard Henshaw. Very well written, it contains interesting info about worldwide national teams and club teams between the earliest days and +/- 1980s. Ask him about it and send him my greetings (helpful fellow).
  • Perhaps the UEFA website can help you further - after all, Standard played a certain amount of European matches.
  • Be creative! If something seems worthwhile to mention, use Google to find if some source can give supporting evidence for that fact.

Good luck and happy editing, Kareldorado (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Do you want to go through Belgium national football team and post some advice to move towards GA or FA on my Peer Review section? Any criticism is welcome and it might attract other reviewers to take a look as well. Kareldorado (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
P.P.S.: For a reliable palmares page of Standard, check this Soccerway page: http://int.soccerway.com/teams/belgium/standard-de-liege/230/trophies/ Kareldorado (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I will definitely contact Marshal! And I'll certainly help out with moving the article towards GA/FA. And their own website is very reliable with honours, mentioning all the times they have finished first or second in the Belgian First Division, Belgian Cup and Super Cup, it's just that the history section on their official website is a little silly! Rupert1904 (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Finished for the night, I got through all of the history on the Belgian national team. It looks pretty good so far, just needed to make a few grammatical fixes, and I think it would probably pass a GA nomination with some more editing. I'll let you know when I am finished. Rupert1904 (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Great work so far. Two people know more than one! The most important things you did in the lead and History sections is making the text more fluent and less obsolete. Kareldorado (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely, happy to help! Rupert1904 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Brown County State Park[edit]

Kareldorado - thank you for reviewing Brown County State Park. You appear to have a significant amount of interest in Belgium-related topics. As someone interested in history and glass making, I know that at one time Belgium was the world's leading maker of window glass. You may find Hartford City Glass Company interesting. It does not need any reviewing, although any comments are always welcome. TwoScars (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice to know! Up to now the only things I knew about Belgians that contributed to the US (not so many left our little country) is that some Walloons even settled earlier than the Dutch in New York, and that some sought a better life in the car industry in the surroundings of Detroit at the time it was booming. However, what you pointed is not totally surprising as Belgium has many churches and the quarries of fine white sand to make the glass. One region had so many little ponds because of the quarries that it has been described as the Belgian Lake District - LOL! I'll have an eye at the Glass Company article. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

Thanks for this edit. Clearly I didn't know how to do it right. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hazard family[edit]

If we assume that the sentence was only referring to the brothers of Eden, Thorgan is in fact the oldest, Kylian the middle and Ethan the youngest. That was my rationale for changing the sentence. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see my mistake. I only looked to the comment you gave about 4 brothers, I did not match the changes made with the "order of appearance" of the brothers. :) Thanks, Kareldorado (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheslea season by season[edit]

Hi. Explain your deleting again in Chelsea's page. thanks. OrGW1899 (talk) 3 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello, before I give my arguments, still this: you should always sign your messages with four tildes (~), then we know it is you. The reason I did away with it is that such a table, although informative, is greatly breaking the flow of the prose from the article. If you want to keep it on Wikipedia, it would always better fit in a specific statistics section on a related page. This (featured) article seems not the place to insert this lump of tables, even though I am aware that in some football articles (especially from lower degree teams) you do see such a table at the main article itself. Thanks for your consideration, keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(In case i understan the (~) rule. sorry for that). In many teams from spain this table appears. in face, the only teams that it is not show are the top teams that always has been on top flight. In many pages such as Real Sociedad, that table looks exactly the same it looked like in my edit. I think its necessary for fast look over the years. for some reason, this table is necessary on spanish teams pages, but not on other teams pages. i'm sure there is a way for this to be improved. I though about bringing this table to as many english teams as it's possible for me...--OrGW1899 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No problemo, I understand you try to do the good thing, and similar boxes will be accepted better on other pages. I think you should gain some more ideas on doing this in an elegant way by looking to different good articles and featured articles (like Barcelona, Manchester United, Aston Villa, ...), how it is done there. Anyway the position of such tables should never be that high in an article, and the block of heavy colours is not so attractive neither. Also, make sure to proof-read your own writings on Wikipedia (with "Show preview") to reduce spelling and grammatical errors. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I really appreciate your efforts, but if I hadn't deleted this table, someone else certainly would have - so don't take it personally. When I started editing in the beginning I also saw several things undone. Kareldorado (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For your information, there is already a Chelsea page with this information, List of Chelsea F.C. seasons. This page is accessible via the collapsed blue "Chelsea F.C."-box at the bottom of the article Chelsea F.C.. Kareldorado (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

Hi there!

Yesterday I was talking to my friend that wiki is not a trustful source for our project cause anyone can edit it.. As you have seen, I have edited a word then I put to the good version.

Have a good day Mohammad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad961 (talkcontribs) 12:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw you put the good version again. However, up to a certain level Wikipedia CAN be trustful, but indeed, you have to be careful with it. "Good" articles ( (B-class,) good and featured) are more likely to be more trustful and another useful thing is the references that are sometimes provided. Kareldorado (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mootisave[edit]

Hello Dear Kareldorado, please help to right creation this article. Mootisave (MOOTISAVE) is not a comercial music production. Mootisave help social projets. This article it was not right written. Please help to write this article correct. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.154.211 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you should sign your posts with four tildes ("~"), then we know it is you. Apparently the article is already deleted. If you post the text here, I am willing to improve the text grammar and vocabulary, and maybe I can find useful references. If it is not commercial, you should prove that. Kareldorado (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have found at Google under: "MOOTISAVE zu gunsten der Frank Christoph Schnitzler - Stiftung". He is a philanthrophy music producer. Mootisave CD's and all products are only (100%) for social things and he singing only for the World-Peace. Loking by Google: "Mootisave - Für den Weltfrieden zu RTL". Frank Christoph Schnitzler is nominiering 2015 for Honours of Flame of Peace. I can not god write a article. Please creation this article an start it. References found you under "Mootisave" by Google. Notable and fame is Mootisave in Europa. I hope you can now writhe a god article. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.154.211 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you try making a stub first at the German wikipedia (I assume German is your mother tongue), with already some reliable references (two or so, and not the Facebook pages appearing in Google) clearly indicating that it is non-promotional. Then I have something to translate and build on. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Entstehung

Die Musikproduktion MOOTISAVE wurde 2009 von Frank Christoph Schnitzler gegründet. Der Musikproduzent komponiert und textet seine Lieder in seinem eigenen Tonstudio in Reutlingen. Auch das Wort MOOTISAVE wurde von Schnitzler erfunden und als Benennung der Musikproduktion verwendet. Das Pseudonym MOOTISAVE ist international unter der GEMA IPI-Nr.: 00747898959 geschützt. Die ersten Songs entstanden 2009. Die erste Single CD mit dem Titel OUR FUTURE erschien 2013. Frank Christoph Schnitzler steht seit vielen Jahren in Verbindung mit nationalen, wie auch internationalen Größen der Pop- und Rockmusik, wie Dieter Bohlen, Peter Schilling uvm. Schnitzler ist Mitglied der GEMA München.

MOOTISAVE bei Das Supertalent - RTL

Schnitzler war mit dem Titel Our Future als Teilnehmer der RTL Casting-Show Deutschland sucht Das Supertalent in der 7. Staffel 2013. Aufgrund einer Achillessehnenruptur am rechten Fuß, schied Schnitzler aus. MOOTISAVE wurde im April 2014 erneut zum Casting "Das Supertalent" zur 8. Staffel nach Stuttgart eingeladen. Er wurde aus weit mehr als 40.000 Kandidaten, aus der Schweiz, Österreich und Deutschland nominiert. MOOTISAVE wurde nach Wiesbaden in das Hessische Staatstheater zur Fernseh-Show Das Supertalent eingeladen, wo er vor ausverkauften Rängen auftrat. Schnitzler sang den, von ihm selbst komponierten und getexteten Titel, Our Future aus seiner Single CD-Auskopplung aus dem Jahre 2013. Schnitzler ist Teilnehmer der RTL Fernseh-Show Das Supertalent in der 8. Staffel 2014. [1] Frank Christoph Schnitzler ist der erste Bürger der Stadt Reutlingen, der in der Fernseh-Show Das Supertalent vor die Jury, bestehend aus Dieter Bohlen, Bruce Darnell, Guido Maria Kretschmer und Lena Gercke, trat.

Weblinks

I hope you can creation this article with this infos. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.93 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Courtois[edit]

Just removed it because it was unreferenced. Thanks, MYS77 14:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Kareldorado (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Mehdi Carcela-González[edit]

Hi, on the article for this Belgian-born player, there are references in Dutch. However, the translated titles must have been done through a machine, as some of them just look odd. If you find time, could you check that all of them are correct? Thank you '''tAD''' (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

NFT - External Links[edit]

I noticed you removed the FIFA World Cup infobox from the Belgium NFT page. I remember I also thought it was a strange addition, although I decided to leave it alone at that time. I did notice however that the same person has also added that infobox to most other NFT pages, so I was thinking about removing them there as well. But then something got my attention, and that's the International Football infobox, which also does not contain any actual NFT pages, but it also does appear under "External Links" on the Belgium NFT page (and on several other NFT pages). Would you agree that it would be best to remove that infobox as well from all those pages? Sygmoral (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be sensible to keep that one after all though, because the NFT pages are of course completely about international footbal, while they are not completely about FIFA World Cup. Not sure... Sygmoral (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I asked myself the same thing at the moment I removed it, but anyway I would drop it as the article is not most directly related to the World Cup, this infobox would fit better at the "Belgium at the World Cup" article. Kareldorado (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgium national football team[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Belgium national football team you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarshalN20 -- MarshalN20 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Football Barnstar: Belgium National Football Team[edit]

Football Barnstar Hires.png The Football Barnstar
Hi Kareldorado. I wanted to award you this barnstar in gratitude for your work on improving Belgian football articles, particularly the country's national football team article. I hope that you will continue being a positive influence on the project.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Marshal, I appreciate this a lot! Me too, I hope I can move other editors and the quality of articles related to Belgium and association football forward. The other way around, I hope you can keep enriching (mainly) South America related articles, and keep providing people insights in how to ameliorate articles in different ways. Kareldorado (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to also share this link with you ([1]). Sometimes it seems that articles go through a process of growth akin to a living being. What made the difference for me was having kind editors lend me a hand in the article; I'll help you out in areas with copy-editing and further citation recommendations. I want to see you earn an FA star for your work!--MarshalN20 Talk 05:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Belgium national football team[edit]

The article Belgium national football team you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Belgium national football team for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarshalN20 -- MarshalN20 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations Karel! :D Well deserved after all the work you've put in :) —Sygmoral (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Joris! Also for you: once again thanks for the creative input regarding layout, copyedits and the work at related articles. It is incredible in how many places I had to find the many crumbs of information and suitable images - maybe I should still purchase one of the books in "Further reading". Look at from how far we came! (This was just before my first edit.) I am so glad there really is a 'full', balanced and illustrated story now, it is considerably more ample and more detailed than I could have thought of before. Kareldorado (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I wonder if we can do a side-by-side comparison of the before-and-after (when the GA review started and when it finished). Make sure to look at the WP:FOOTY discussions as I plan to propose a new template for national football teams. This experience taught me much about the need for an improved template. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A side-by-side comparison is maybe not that easy, but a step-by-step comparison would help in showing which things needed to be solved, and how it was done. Of course, the GA review page can serve a bit as a general guideline for that. Kareldorado (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Belgium NFT GA[edit]

Congratulations on the GA, it's a badge of honour with how few GA-class national teams there are. I'm sorry I never took you up on the request to review it myself, but I could not have done as thorough a job as its eventual reviewer.

Have you put it up for a WP:DYK? '''tAD''' (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! After 14 years of English Wiki there are still only 2 featured NFT articles and 5 GA (as far as I know) out of 209 FIFA-associated national teams, so indeed, I feel flattered. No problem, I fully agree no one could have been more qualified for the job to guide this article towards GA (and FA?) than MarshalN20. However, you can still significantly contribute with some copyedits or giving tiny but bright suggestions. It is the only way the article can advance: bit by bit, nibble by nibble. Oh, yes, I saw that someone immediately put it up for DYK... we will see, who knows! Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the article on Peer Review when the Scottish national team was listed there recently. I've had a bit of a run through, your English is generally faultless, but there were here-and-there some incredibly small errors like with prepositions and word order: things like that can be read and understood, but they "look foreign", if you know what I mean. That's nothing against you, I obviously do the same all the time when I write in French, Spanish and Italian. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Belgium national football team has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

BE NFT - Recent Call-ups[edit]

Greetings Mr. Karel!

I was wondering whether you followed my answer on my own talk page, concerning how to display information about the conditions under which a player was not selected at some point. Reason I'm mentioning this now is because I noticed that Danielmordor undid part of my 'solution', which was to reference the call-ups that did not in fact result in a selection. I re-introduced those references, but thought I'd see what you think about them. On whatever talk page. :) —Sygmoral (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi honourable Joris, yes, I am sorry about that. In fact, I did not expect this issue would bring up so many ideas and concerns. I was rather waiting to see what it would become in practice. I am perfectly ok with your version that brings on comments and references - during almost a year they help in informing the reader why. When Danielmordor made this these changes I was not much with it on my mind, but a next time the info is omitted I will revert similar changes. After all, apart from the intro the core of the article is the current squad, eh? (+ players that closely failed a selection) Kareldorado (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
And like that we now reached the milestone of 200 references. Yay! :) Kareldorado (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment of ProudTarjaholic on including honours on Belgium NFT page[edit]

Hi, I sincerely think it might be useful/necessary to give an overview of the Belgian national football team's honours by means of a table, as it has been done on other national football team's pages too. Things like records and achievements should ALWAYS be visible on the main page, without referring links. This is just not clear in any way... What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudTarjaholic (talkcontribs) 14:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
For a while I have been thinking this as well, but there are many things to consider. Please check the FA-rated articles of the Scottish and Peruvian national football teams. They didn't need it either to become featured - know that they are even the only featured NFT articles. Also read the GA review and comments at the talk page; these honours are already mentioned at least four times throughout the text, including the intro and infobox. We simply don't need it. I invite you to discuss this with MarshalN20. Maybe next time it's better to discuss major things you want to do at the Talk page, especially if an article is rated B/A/GA/FA. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Next time, please sign with four tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ without spacing), then we know it's you. Kareldorado (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm kind of new to the wiki features, so could you please explain me what those GA-articles are exactly? I respect you opinion, although I don't really get what you tend to say by 'many things to consider'? Agreed, all the stuff I added is already in the intro and infobox, but soms readers expect to see an overview instead of reading the whole article. Could you try to explain differently to me? Thanks in advance. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Very well, I happily welcome you in getting more familiar with how Wikipedia works. GA means "good article" and FA means "featured article". "Good" means something like "very decent work, and satisfactory as encyclopaedic source" while "featured" is "Wikipedia's very best work, totally encyclopaedia-worthy". Good descriptions of these can be found in the quality scale table. Many articles at first sight seem very good - for people that are not so much into Wikipedia and do a quick search - but if you go to the Talk page then it can turn out to be a C-article. This means that there is a lot of meaningful content but there are also many shortcomings before it can be called "good". The B-status indicates the GA-status is within reach but the article still needs quite some work. Know that, the more recent GA-status and FA-status are given, the more stringent the criteria were. In other words, in the beginning of Wikipedia (more than 10 years ago) GA- and FA-status were given more easily. Kareldorado (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't always matter what a reader expects. Some readers expect Wikipedia to be a newspaper, in typical newspaper style. Of course, it is best when the page is up-to-date, but telegram style, bold remarks without a suitable reference and tables "just to show tables" are really not what we want here. Kareldorado (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I can see where you are going, so thanks for clearing that out ;-) Yet, is my impression correct that others are editing Wikipedia for another purpose than making it a GA- or FA-rate? For instance, the Dutch national football team page has some contributions going the other way than what this page is becoming ^^ ProudTarjaholic (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree on Wikipedia needing to have encyclopaedia-worth content (although from a personal view I'm not fond of endless paragraphs and sections of text), but it strikes me that watching the Template:Belgium national football team records page, there's a subtitle named 'awards' whereas 'honours' is the more correct term, AND the Olympic Tournament is mentioned while both the FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro Tournaments are left out... Can you explain why that is? This is no offence btw, i'm just trying to figure out ;-) ProudTarjaholic (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand your point, but the scope of making an encyclopedia is not making it "dry", no; as it becomes more professional, it gives attention to all important aspects in the appropriate amount. Read the intro of the Belgium NFT or Peru NFT and you basically know everything there is to know, don't you agree? Sometimes, that is true, articles becomes text monsters. Check FC Barcelona: it was once rated FA, but now its history section became something that almost nobody (except a fan) would want to read. Nowadays it would fail a new FA review. Look at the Netherlands NFT article: it appears that anyone could write what they want - adding references seems unnecessary. I find it a pity that the Netherlands NFT article is growing so wild, because its history is rich and interesting. The reason I deliberately did not choose for the title "Honours" was that the word "honour" is as vague as the word "hero". When is an achievement good enough to be an honour? Check it out: everything in the section Awards is about awards: medals, cups, other titles. However, a title does not necessarily imply that you received an award, in that way I can follow you, so maybe I'd better rename it "Titles and awards". This would be a lot more exact than "Honours" or "Palmares". Do you agree? Kareldorado (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You can roughly divide people that make edits on Wikipedia into three categories: 1) people that want to keep the pages updated with new things that happened / 2) people that want to 'improve' the article (adding historical information, references, making fancier text and layout) / 3) Vandals. The second sort of people is needed to improve articles in the long term, that is making them thorough, concise, easy to read and reliable. The first category is also needed: many pages need to be updated because it's about living people or active organisations. However, only updating does not 'improve' the article. The third category is partly understandable but also a pity - there are enough other places to joke around than Wikipedia. Kareldorado (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Kareldorado seems to have answered all of the questions on this subject. GA & FA articles are, in summary, works that have been peer-reviewed (the FA level being more rigorous than the GA level); these are generally deemed by the community to follow a standard format and to have reliable citations to reliable material on the subject. I agree that having too much text can be boring to read; this is why the guideline on WP:SUMMARY was created. As Wikipedians have become better in technical elements, such as templates, charts, and pictures, so have articles become enriched with non-textual content. The problem at present is that some older FA/GA articles need to be updated with the new guidelines and technical material. There must also be an appropriate balance between text and non-text; otherwise, the encyclopedia risks becoming more like a picture book with little explanation or with a missing narrative. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Kareldorado, thanks for answering all my questions. It might indeed be better to rename it 'Titles and awards', although titles clearly refer to effective WINS only (golden medals and such). So an alternative might also be to rename it 'Achievements' or so, I'm not sure. As for 'awards', that is just incorrect ;-) I do have a last minor proposal to keep their achievements a little clarifying (for you and MarshalN20 to judge): couldn't we AT LEAST add the team's 3 medals at the bottom of the infobox, icons included? (as only the Olympics 1920 gold medal is shown). The reason I ask is because above, only the best result in the Euro campaigns is given (runners-up in 1980), and the bronze medal of 1972 is not... So can we? This way, it would be a lot clearer, while the WC's fourth place is already mentioned above (= adequate). ProudTarjaholic (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is my point that it is better to show only the first places since it is hard to determine from everything what is less than a first place would have to be an "honour". I also find that a 4th place at the World Cup is 'not nothing', but then you can ask yourself whether you should also include the quarter-final in 2014, etc. etc. The same for Europe: I depicted a bronze medal a while ago, true, but this does not mean that they received a medal. Is it an honour then? This is dubious, and I only prefer to include "sure" information. Don't you agree the FIFA Fair Play Trophy is an award? Or do you want to say that the title "other awards" should become "awards"? Because, I do agree that the titles are not really awards, but the cups and medals won in that framework maybe yes... well, "trophy" is a better description. Other suggestions for the current heading "Titles and awards" are welcome. Kareldorado (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I do agree that the FIFA Fair Play Trophy is an award, so yes, it might be good to rename the subtitle 'awards' just like that, as they were GIVEN to the team. Other 'trophies' among their records are WON, like the 1920 gold medal. So here we are: both 'Trophies/Titles' and 'Awards' seem to have a certain part in this section. But when giving a link the name of 'records', you can't sum up all the record-breaking matches (major and minor ones) without mentioning the stage in which they were played. Could it be a solution to make another section in between 'Trophies/Titles and awards' (2) and 'Appearances' (3) called 'Achievements' (the new 3)? I can't imagine a page on the Dutch NFT, for example, to show their Euro title in 1988 without mentioning their 3 WC finals. Can you? It just feels very incomplete to me. Furthermore, it's intriguing that the tournament places of 1st up to 4th is generally shown in gold, grey, brown and blue on basically every other team's page, except ours. (light yellow for the 4th place). Why was it changed? The bottom of the infobox is still titled 'Honours' btw ;-) Only here to help, ok? ProudTarjaholic (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Your input is welcome as always, don't worry. Oh, the infobox. :) Right, I cannot change that format right away. There is something in what you say about an achievements section (or "Other achievements" since the "Trophies and awards" already includes some achievements), yet this is arbitrary. Maybe we could write down the 2nd and 3rd places at major tournaments and wins against reigning World/European/Olympic champions... in this new section and note that explicitely on top of the section. Check the articles about the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, there they do use the light yellow for fourth place. That's one reason, the other is that the colour of 4th place should be more modest (less flashy) than that of 1-2-3, I think. Kareldorado (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured myself later the day, that 'Other achievements' would indeed be the more appropriate term as trophies make part of it ;-) Considering that winning those minor friendly trophies and cups don't gave the team a specific status (like world champion, european champion, olympic champion etc.), I wouldn't call them 'Other Titles' anymore, but 'Trophies'. To keep it even MORE clear, I suggest the following build-up:
2. Achievements
2.1 Major titles,
2.2 Friendly trophies,
2.3 Awards,
2.4 Other achievements.
No new '3.' is needed this way, and we could add the 2nd (1980) and 3d place (1972) under the last subtitle 2.4 I assume that the 4th place of the WC (1986) still needs to be left out however, despite the fact it's been given another colour too in the tables? If you agree, I'm willing to try this out, so you could judge and/or adapt afterwards? ProudTarjaholic (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I too think the 4th places in tables need a more modest colour (it just seemed generally adapted by everyone to use the blue). But light yellow is fine, however a shame it's very hard to distinguish from the usual white... Well, on MY screen that is :p ProudTarjaholic (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
If I might interject concerning 'Honours' in the infobox: a little bit of history! The Infobox medal templates-box was added into the NFT infobox on 22 March 2009. The default title for this template is in fact "Medal record", but the user that added this template into the NFT infobox renamed it to "Honours". Ever since, in over 6 years, no one has ever questioned that label, but that's no reason it has to remain that way! Because I have to wonder, why did the default title of "Medal record" have to be overwritten? As far as I can find, it's only ever used for G / S / B medals; in fact, only ever for Olympic Games medals. To be honest, I'd just go in and change it to its default of "Medal record". Wouldn't that make it much more clear? —Sygmoral (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, this build-up, I fully stand behind it - give it your best shot! Kareldorado (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Kareldorado, job done :-) I truely think it was a good compromise. I added the 2nd and 3rd place to the 'other achievements' parts, in italics but WITHOUT the bold unlike their effective wins (to make up a clear difference). I also deliberately left out the fourth place on the WC 1986, like you asked. Or do you think we should reconsider, because of the new subtitle 'other achievements'? We COULD consider them as an achievement - and work from the semi-finals upwards as a 'rule' - given the 4 different colours in the tournaments lists as well (light yellow for the 4th places). Please let me now what you think. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sygmoral, good proposal from your side, and it would indeed make it much more clear, as the'honours' (to be renamed 'other achievements') should be restricted to a given link further down, as Kareldorado pointed out. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Any comments about the text at the main page? Every help is welcome to get it to featured status. Tell me if you think a sentence is "not running so smoothly". Kareldorado (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Belgium national football team[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

New 'other achievements' section on Belgium NFT records[edit]

Hi, I wasn't sure whether you had read my last comment on my contribution a few days ago, so here it is again:

Dear Kareldorado, job done :-) I truely think it was a good compromise. I added the 2nd and 3rd place to the 'other achievements' parts, in italics but WITHOUT the bold unlike their effective wins (to make up a clear difference). I also deliberately left out the fourth place on the WC 1986, like you asked. Or do you think we should reconsider, because of the new subtitle 'other achievements'? We COULD consider them as an achievement - and work from the semi-finals upwards as a 'rule' - given the 4 different colours in the tournaments lists as well (light yellow for the 4th places). Please let me now what you think. ProudTarjaholic (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC) ProudTarjaholic (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, yes I read it but should have replied immediately. For me mentioning places 1-4 seems acceptable, since all tables indeed emphasize the first four and the second and third place did not receive a medal either (or at least not that I know). Go ahead and add the World Cup fourth place. Indeed, I also prefer to only use bold when a title was achieved. Kareldorado (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Thanks for the edit, feel free to recommend me more changes. A question, I was considering putting S.L. Benfica to peer review, to get a community feedback of how its stands now and it needs, since its never been PR. By looking at it, do you think it would be a waste of time?--Threeohsix (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A waste of time in what sense? I don't think a general peer review would ever be a waste of time if you want advice to get it further towards GA (obtaining feedback through peer review goes a lot quicker than through GA review), but there are a couple of things that you can or should do even before asking for community feedback:
  • Avoid the sandwiching between images left and right, which is currently the case several times in the History section. You should keep 2, 3, or maybe 4 pictures in the History section but not really more. My preference for images, at first sight: the first Benfica team - Eusébio - (Shéu - ) 31st or 32nd league title celebration
  • I'd move the Latin Cup image to the Honours section.
  • Make properly sized paragraphs instead of the many thin paragraphs that only consist of one or two sentences.
  • Get the references out of the lead; the intro should be a summary of everything below, and it is only in the text that follow that these references should be used.
  • Ask me to read thoroughly through it! :) I am willing to do so somewhere in upcoming weekends. Kareldorado (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking for some feedback if placing it into PR was a good idea, but it's apparent that the article needs lots of work. However, if you wish to give some more feedback, go ahead.--Threeohsix (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Woo! Belgium made it![edit]

Hi Karel. Congrats on Belgium making it to the Euro 2016! One of the biggest questions I often have with these sports team articles is how up-to-date I should maintain the article. Should one edit it immediately after an event, or should one wait a few days for better sources on the topic? What is the right tense to use (present or past)? Just a few thoughts. I hope everything is going good with the work here in WP. As always, let me know if you have any questions.--MarshalN20 Talk 06:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

MarshalN20: Not sure if this is what you mean, but my WikiAdvisor formerly known as User:Always Learning told me that encyclopedic articles should be written in the past as much as possible. For example, even when Euro 2016 is in progress, we should write "Eden Hazard represented Belgium in two international tournaments", rather than "Eden Hazard played for Belgium at the 2014 World Cup and is representing them at Euro 2016". It saves going over it again to put it in the past. Sometimes I stumble across articles where things are written in present or future, and it has since been forgotten, the article then seems obsolete. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Can't believe I missed this. Thanks TAD!--MarshalN20 Talk 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Marshal! IMO, every sports page where significant amounts of updates are needed should have a bucket list at its Talk page like the one I made... and some editors who are willing to execute these updates, of course. Else it gets too difficult to keep the overview of what to update. I agree with The Almightey that, as quickly as possible, everything should be written in the past tense BUT it should also be correct. At this moment, "Eden Hazard represented Belgium in two international tournaments" is misleading information - what's more, you should realise that he can break a leg in between (a wink to the unfortunate Djibril Cissé and Christian Benteke). Kareldorado (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Concerning how up-to-date a sports article should be kept, I would like to add that aside of "what is ideal", there's also practicality to consider: there are always editors that will add recent news as soon as it is published (especially for popular teams). In some cases, removing uncertain information or protecting the article is the best option, but I believe that is often better to just anticipate these edits by making the change yourself, so that you have some control over it. Also by having 'at least some mention', you can can avoid the reverts or protection (perhaps aided by a comment such as <!-- do not edit unless fully confirmed -->). —Sygmoral (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Karel and Syg, it's always a pleasure to read your thoughts! Thanks!--MarshalN20 Talk 05:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Thanks! All prosaic and stylistic improvement is very welcome, only be careful not to change the factual content. Kareldorado (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No worries; feel free to correct me if I do inadvertantly change something. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite news[edit]

I've just taken a look at the documentation for the Cite news template (following your most recent edits on BE NFT), and what I conclude is that the domain name should simply not be mentioned: it's irrelevant. Also, "publisher" is for the company doing the publishing (for De Standaard, this is in fact Mediahuis) while "newspaper" is an alias for the "work" parameter, which says what the periodical magazine/newspaper/... is called where the news appeared. De Standaard is a brand, I don't believe it is a publisher itself. "publisher" is in fact not recommended to be mentioned at all (nobody knows that Mediahuis is the publisher behind De Standaard anyway), so for a newspaper, only the newspaper argument suffices. For websites like Sporza.be that do not have an associated website/magazine/..., I would simply replace "newspaper" with "website", and not change anything else (and keep it as the name rather than the domain name, of course). I'm happy to go over the references on the BE NFT article to check this. —Sygmoral (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Bicycle kick[edit]

Hi Karel. I hope you're having a good holiday season. Due to your association football knowledge, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts about the Bicycle kick article at Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1. Thanks and happy new year!--MarshalN20 Talk 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, I surely do and hope the very same for you. Even though I like to enrich football-related articles I consider myself still rather a nitwit than an expert in the field. However, I am willing to read the article by this Sunday and share comments on both the total structure and separate sentences. Feliz año nuevo, Kareldorado (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png Thank you for correcting my mistake, Davin88 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Don't feel discouraged, amigo. I think the FA review was a great experience. Most reviewers enjoyed the article's narrative and structure. The suggested corrections may take some more time to fix, but they are minuscule when compared to the massive work you have done up to now. I know you can do it!-- MarshalN20 Talk 17:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and don't worry, I don't. I just thought it would better to let the first FA review fade away, to start again with it later - else it would hang on for months, and I didn't the see the use of that. I agree the vast majority of the work has been done at that page, yet it can be further fine-tuned in several ways. What are your biggest personal Wiki-projects coming up? I'm curious to hear it! Kareldorado (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Belgium women's national football team[edit]

Hey Karel! Happy New Year! ;)
I've been improving the Belgium women's national football team article a bit in the past half year, and I just noticed that it's still rated as a 'Stub', which I don't think it is anymore. So I've been trying to figure out how to request it getting rated for Start-class (or maybe straight to C?), but I can't figure it out what I have to do!... So I thought, let's just ask Karel, he's done this stuff before :D –Sygmoral (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I found it: I listed it here. –Sygmoral (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I haven't been that actively busy with Wikipedia anymore lately. I have known another, more general assessment page, but I think that the page where you listed it now is a more suitable place. Kareldorado (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I think C status is within very close reach. Good job! Here and there I would add some references, say at least one per paragraph. Kareldorado (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Writing week Brussels[edit]

Dear Kareldorado,

since you are from Belgium, I thought you might be interested in the Writing week Brussels that is going on right now.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Taketa, that's a good idea! Here you go. Best regards, Kareldorado (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Eén is geen, daarom doen we er nog één bij. :) Kind regards, Kareldorado (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Hi, how do I know which sports and football related admins are? All I see is a list of active ones which is of no help really.--Rebelheartous (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know a 100% foolproof method to find all sports/football related admins, but I think there are two things you can do. 1) Compare the list of active admins with the lists of editors involved in WP Sports or WP Football. 2) Ask GiantSnowman - he is a football related (or rather: passionate) admin. Kareldorado (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an admin who edits primarily in football - so are Number 57 (talk · contribs), Fenix down (talk · contribs), ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)... GiantSnowman 13:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks both of you.--Rebelheartous (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Timestamp[edit]

Hi. You are probably aware of this and made a mistake, but thought I should inform you anyway about this little mistake you made when adding international goals to Romelu Lukaku. After you left the article it said "As of match played 1 June 2016..." but you added a goal from 5 June. It would be good if you could remember to update timestamps when updating statistics so other editors know when it was updated (although obvious here). I have corrected it for you, just thought you should know. Have a nice day. Qed237 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and making me aware. Usually, I look at the context and update the timestamps or the column totals in case of statistical tables, but apparently I missed this. Keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Belgium national football team[edit]

Hello Kareldora:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Belgium national football team has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You will notice that I archived one of the article’s citations (#43). I suggest that you archive the rest of the article’s URLs as time allows. This ensures that the article's references are available "forever" and that it doesn’t develop "dead links" over time.

In case you have not done this before, the site I use is https://archive.org/web/. Simply copy the URL in the citation and paste it in the “Save Page Now” box on the archive.org site and click save. This creates a copy of the original page and provides you with a new URL to add to the original citation. If you look at the URL I've archived you'll see the syntax. You add the new URL to the end of the original citation like this: |archiveurl=http etc|archivedate=8 June 2016}}. Not all websites allow archiving - CBS TV news and the NY Times are two I've come across, so there's not much you can do about that unless there is an alternate citation you could use.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it is difficult to believe with which precision and speed you improved the article's readability and professional look last night. A second thanks for the hint on archiving article's citations! Kareldorado (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Caps[edit]

I think you may benefit from reading this discussion on my TP regarding caps and FIFA recognition. As a case in point, FIFA do not recognise the England match versus a FIFA XI in 1963, while the Football Association do. Appearances from that match are included in player records. And bear in mind Gibraltar were not FIFA recognised until recently, but we of course included their appearances from European qualifying. My point is, FIFA recognition is not necessarily the deciding factor. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I imagine there can be some debate about this, yes... Difficult to judge, but considering a (presumably multi-national) team named "FIFA XI" as a football nation is a bit weird, isn't it? How can this match then be regarded as an inter-national game? My point is that, with regard to the 2014 Belgium-Luxembourg match, the Laws of the Game were made before the match... and the rules (specifically the number of substitutions) were simply not honoured. Trainer Marc Wilmots acknowledges he made a mistake - also a pity for Romelu Lukaku, who saw his hat-trick wiped away. But hey, thanks for bringing up the discussion; it is the only way to get this encyclopaedia forward! Kareldorado (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
And, I agree FIFA recognition is not necessarily the deciding factor. Imagine a FIFA person needs no be present to assure the official character, but something horrible happens to him and because of this the match data are more 'vague', IMO the match is not necessarily to be regarded as unofficial. Kareldorado (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing table of competitive record on Belgian national football team[edit]

Hey, just a minor question: I wanted to add Belgium's specific tournament position (7th of 24) after the Euro 2016 tournament (since it is known now), but I can't find a way to edit the table/box showing those results. I'm wondering about it for a long time already. Where can I find it, or how is it expected to be done? Plz let me know, thanks in advance! Greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudTarjaholic (talkcontribs) 18:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out, I adapted it now already. If you want to modify a template, that is, something between {{}} in wikicode, you can to find it by typing "Template:" in the search box and then the title between the {{}}, so in this case "Template:Belgium UEFA European Championship record". There you have the template. Keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot! BTW, are you too experiencing the light yellow colour (beige) in those templates insufficiently visible? As on my PC screen, it's barely visible (practically white next to all other white). I found this certain 'LemonChiffon' colour as an alternative on other pages. If you notice the same thing, might it be a good idea to change it? After all, I did integrate succesfully the beige colour on many other pages of different national teams as well ProudTarjaholic (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In this case, just listen to your heart. :) Kareldorado (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Stub Barnstar[edit]

Stub Barnstar.png The Stub Barnstar
I thereby award you with The Stub Barnstar for expanding Brahmaea wallichii into a Start-class article. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 11:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and you're welcome! Kareldorado (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Abandoned match against Luxembourg.[edit]

Hello. I was looking at Belgium's list of unofficial matches and it says that the match against Luxembourg on 1 March 2006 was unofficial as a result of it being abandoned in the second half. However I see players who were involved in that match such as Timmy Simons, Thomas Vermaelen and Anthony Vanden Borre have still been credited with a cap for that particular match. Shouldn't all the players who played in that match not be credited with an official appearance? Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, very good remark. I just happen to see that in various lists, it is counted together with games that are official without any doubt. Apparently, we have it listed both in our official and unofficial records... -sigh- . This is a very tricky one. It is not clear, when looking at Luigi Pieroni's match record at eu-football.info (http://eu-football.info/_player.php?id=16648), National Football Teams (http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/691/Luigi_Pieroni.html) and the player website of the RBFA (http://www.belgianfootball.be/en/all-red-devils) whether this is generally regarded as official or not. As you know, Pieroni played and scored in that match. In the first two sources Luigi Pieroni played 25 matches and scored twice, in the third 24 but also scoring twice. Maybe the RBFA considers the goal as valid, but not the game to count as a cap. Two other Belgian editors are quite committed with the Belgian NFT; I happily invite Pelotas and Sygmoral to discuss the official aspect. Thanks for your input, Kareldorado (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Mystery solved: RBFA forgot to count Pieroni's cap against Serbia and Montenegro in 2004. So, apparently the RBFA considers the 2006 match against Luxembourg as entirely official. Kareldorado (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, FIFA listed this game among official friendlies, see http://www.fifa.com/fifa-tournaments/teams/compare.html . If you fill in Belgium and Luxembourg, and you scroll down to "friendlies", you will find the 2006 match. In that case, even though it feels a bit weird, I will adapt the page on unofficial matches then. Kareldorado (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Good work, thanks for investigating. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Belgium supporters' club 1895.gif listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Belgium supporters' club 1895.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Belgium women's national football team for GA[edit]

Hi Karel, do you think Belgium women's national football team warrants a Good Article classification? If not, what would you say is missing? If there are no obvious issues, I'm thinking about nominating it. –Sygmoral (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joris, I have to say that you greatly pushed the article forward—without your expansions it would have remained nothing but a stub. However, at the moment I think the article only merits C-status (check the quality scale carefully to understand why). If you want to improve it towards B-status, the next thing to do is adding a couple of inline citations in every paragraph. At the moment, the article is under-referenced. Maybe, if possible, I would drop a couple of lines about former coaches and players in the appropriate sections. Are you sure the Algarve Cup is the only minor tournament in which they competed? (I have no idea, to be honest.) If not, the others are to be added as well. The amount of text in the History section seems fair (for only 40 years of existence) and the word usage ok, so a good one on that. Consider dropping the scorelines. Improve punctuation as the colons are not always appropriate. The article has also too many wikilinks, for example the French national team is linked four times in the text while this should only be once or twice. Avoid piped links (naming a year instead of a proper event). Is there any picture available on the national team as a whole? Altogether, all these issues might take some time to sort out, but B-status is within reach. Once you think it is B-worthy, I would submit it for Peer Review to let someone else confirm so. One day GA might be possible as well, but for that way more 'body' is needed than the current 5 kB of readable prose size, I'm afraid. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess I knew about the huge shortage of reference, but thanks for the other suggestions too! About body size, I was thinking that should be in reach because there are actually a lot of women's national footbal team articles at GA status with little content, probably because there simply isn't that much to say about them (yet): Burundi, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo and Zanzibar. Yeah, somebody's been busy upgrading all of these in a similar format :) There's only one European at GA or higher though - the only FA one: Germany. Anyway, all those GA ones certainly have many more references, which will be the biggest challenge. I'll note that as the next thing to work on. –Sygmoral (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)