User talk:S.A. Julio

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


FC Schalke 04 Season 18/19[edit]

Hello S.A. Julio,

could you please open the FC Schalke 04 Season 2018/2019 so I can start editing it (transfers, friendlies etc.).

This would be very nice from you :)

kind regards,

Nico

@Nico s04 94: I believe the article exists, correct? See 2018–19 FC Schalke 04 season. Let me know if anything is needed, good luck this season! S.A. Julio (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh my bad sorry. I just looked at the 17/18 season an there is no link to the new season. Thank you I hope the guys can be so successful as last season :)

2018 FIFA World Cup squads - Player representation by club confederation[edit]

Hi, about a week ago an IP pointed out in talk page that our table there is wrong. From its numbers, there is a total of 737 players, but it should be 736 (32 x 23). Hopefully you can take care of it, because I have been quite busy for the last few days. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: One extra was added to the AFC, now fixed. Looking forward to the final? Should be interesting, maybe Croatia have one last trick up their sleeve. Thanks for all your work during the tournament, I think I'm now ready for the return of club football... S.A. Julio (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift reply, and also your commendation. Well, I think many editors here have contributed more than I have, in this tournament as well as other football articles :) I have mostly been confining myself to some notable events (Premiership, Bundesliga, Serie A, La Liga; Champions League, Europa League; Euro, World Cup) and pages involving teams that I am interested in (actually I am a Manucian, but Manchester United's pages are popular enough already, so I spend much time on Athletic Bilbao, and my national team's official tournaments). About the final, my favourite is France. Croatian midfielders and forwards are quite comparable to French, but France's defenders are considerably superior. France are also better physically (1 more rest day after the semi-finals, did not have to play any extra times), just not psychologically (not many people expected Croatia to go this far, so their mind would be quite relaxed). After World Cup, I think I will take a short wikibreak, take care of some non-wiki things, then return next month :) Centaur271188 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Centaur271188: I agree, France should have the upper hand, but I also thought the same for the Euro final. But who knows with this tournament, never sure what to expect. Hopefully will be entertaining, would care for a bit more excitement than France's last match. And it's definitely quite a lot with the attention attracted to the articles, enjoy the break :) Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Final kits[edit]

What was the base to restore the kits for the final? The shorts and socks are not confirmed yet by FIFA. If so, I want a source. Thanks. – Flix11 10:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Flix11: The article mentioned does seem to include information on the kits (with shorts and socks) from FIFA, I believe it is a screenshot from their internal/press information system. Other articles confirm this. And hopefully you can update FT for the final? Thanks again for all your work during the tournament. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: Well it is believable but yeah fine. Of course I will. Thank you too. – Flix11 02:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@S.A. Julio: Hey I want to ask. A user insisted to use lowercase "fourth place" instead of "Fourth Place" on Template:England squad 2018 FIFA World Cup. The capital each word version used everywhere, including Template:England squad 1990 FIFA World Cup. What should I do? Thanks. – Flix11 16:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

FR Yugoslavia[edit]

Hi, I see you reverted my edits, by saying just "unnecessary" based on what ? the country competed under the name of Yugoslavia, and I know this is a different Yugoslavia but we also don't use the name of SFR Yugoslavia for before 1998 tournaments. so why here ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article on the previous Yugoslavia team is at Yugoslavia national football team. In order to avoid ambiguity, FR Yugoslavia should be used as it is clearer to readers (it doesn't hurt, does it?). If Wikipedia existed in 1998, prior to the name change, I think the article would be located at FR Yugoslavia national football team. If you look at Serbia and Montenegro national football team, "FR Yugoslavia" is used consistently. This is a unique situation, but if it benefits our readers (not all may be familiar), I think there is no reason to remove the clarification. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, I got busy with other things and just forgot to continue this discussion, I also think there is no reason to have this "FR" thing. I already explained my reasons, there should be consistency between all wiki pages and they don't use "FR" for other sports (see volleyball, basketball etc) or also in these articles regarding the Olympics, Yugoslavia at the Olympics. if we are still in disagreement I will take this to the football project and let them decide because I really don't think that FR thing should be there. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCONTENT applies, though it may be used elsewhere does not make it correct/need to be used here (I also suspect the template system plays a role, as when calling 'FR Yugoslavia', the default display name is only Yugoslavia). There's no reason not to be clear to our readers with no ambiguity, and it doesn't detract from the articles. The Olympics is different, for football we recognise FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro as the same, separate from the Yugoslavia to 1992, hence the reason to be clear to readers who may not be familiar. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Werner Bickelhaupt[edit]

 Done GiantSnowman 07:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Euro 2020[edit]

I have twice made minor wording edits to the venues table/section because I found some confusion in the given table, with included explanation of how I found it confusing in the edit note. Now twice you've later gone back later and changed it back to the original wording without any discussion as to why. You may really like your word choice more, but as I explained how it may (and did for me) lead to confusion, I'd think that'd be the primary concern. At least to me (predominantly American English, some British English interaction), the word "rejected" in such a case is ambiguous, given it a) doesn't indicate who rejected... whether the city rejected an offer or UEFA did, and b) is a full synonym for eliminated. It also gives no help for users wondering why they were rejected as opposed to eliminated. It's the type of thing I do believe a user can work out/guess at the intended meaning of, but might often requiring notable effort. So I figured a small change could clear up potential issues... and tried first a few clarifying words in the text, and then altering "rejected standard package" to "invalid standard package" to be much more direct and specific on why they those cities weren't selected (without any change in article length). But with your unexplained reversions, it comes across almost dismissive, as if you only want to have the article exactly as you like it, and maybe can't envision the challenges others might face in it? And also comes across almost as if you don't put much value to the well-intentioned good faith edits of others. It would seem an unnecessary degree of commotion, but if you're really set on your opinion against such edits, it could be opened to discussion with others to determine if I'm isolated in seeing confusion or to get further options. Or maybe such edits were really unintentional, perhaps due to data still on your system or keeping harmony with the Bids article (I just realized it has the same table)? Or just done quickly without significant intention regarding the wording? I realize you certainly work very hard on tons of articles, and often must stave off vandalism and harmful edits. And it looks like your work is of great value to all. So I certainly don't mean be any trouble, but would think it best to find a solution that might work well for all? Thanks JeopardyTempest (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@JeopardyTempest: Sorry, there were a lot of disruptive edits on the page, so I decided to restore to an older, stable version. I didn't intend to revert the change, I've now restored the wording to "invalid". S.A. Julio (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Very much appreciated, I'd figured that probably was the case, but became unsure! Thanks for all your good work and for putting up with my complaint!
JeopardyTempest (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jochen Figge[edit]

No evidence of any playing career, I've removed him from the category. GiantSnowman 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Bot[edit]

Bot request filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 7. Category has been renamed to Category:Association football player non-biographical articles. User:Ronhjones/Sandbox5 is now down to 43737 entries. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are adding that cat to lots of page. Do you need a macro? If so add the contents of User:Ronhjones/anp.js to you <skin>.js (e.g if you use monobook, then edit monobook.js. You will find a link marked anp (on monobook - a new tab) - click that on any page and it will go into edit mode, add the cat and save. Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Alright, though I think most of the non-biographies should be categorised. I've just fixed some improper categorisation (i.e. manager categories under the player tree), could the sandbox be updated to get the new count? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, It takes a good 2 hours, so will run when I go to bed (about 1-2am UK) - and then post in the morning. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
44649 results Ronhjones  (Talk) 08:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Trial was approved, and has been run. All OK so far. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Great, I've been working on adjusting some of the categories/pages that shouldn't be in the tree, almost complete. However, with the bot I noticed some of the excluded non-biographical pages were categorised as missing positions, for example 2008 WPS General Draft. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Just make sure they are in Category:Association football player non-biographical articles and the bot will remove the category next time. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ronhjones: Alright, and my latest count now is 43,523 articles matching to be categorised. Also, how was 1885–86 St. Mary's Y.M.A. season categorised here? I didn't see it on the sandbox list. And once everything is set, I can leave a message at WT:FOOTY to give a bit of an explanation of the task, and explain the "non-biographical articles" category if anyone comes across non-players in the uncategorised list. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

The joys, or not, of python vs. Windoze ( - python wins every time). If I write the page name in plain text, and I get a "UnicodeEncodeError", then I print the uft-8 string. If there is something else wrong, it will probably skip writing that item - possibly the dash, maybe the apostrophe (they always cause havoc - I think Windows wants a two together, like 1885–86 St. Mary''s Y.M.A. season to give the right answer). That page need to be in the exclude cat, so I've added that. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Thanks, though how does the page show up in the category tree? I've done quite a few searches under Category:Association football players using AWB, and have never come across that article. The page is only in Category:Southampton F.C. seasons and Category:English football clubs 1885–86 season, neither should be under the player category tree. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
There are so many categories. Who knows. I'll see if I can work it out, but there are so many cats having more cats...! Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Took a while - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._Varley&redirect=no. Should a redirect have a category? Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Ah yes thanks, I should've realised, had the same issue with categorised redirects earlier. For redirects I don't see a need for a player category. Also, do you know of any quick way to find all the redirected pages in a list of articles? Would be useful to know if there are more in order to avoid the same issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
There should be a way... I'll have a read up on the Api query calls. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I found that when one gets the wikitext of a page, there is an automatic seamless follow of redirects as default. We can adjust the call not to follow redirects, and we can make sure we don't add the category to a redirect page. I think that will stop any more issues. When we do the main run, I can make sure any redirects with cats are listed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ronhjones: Alright great. I'm also using AWB to (albeit slowly) scan pages and stop on any redirects, so I'll try to fix any that I find. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Just waiting for bot approval now. This bit can take a while. One is only supposed to "poke" after 7 days with no answer (the bot group do like to have one person to approve the trial and a different one to final approve). Anyway, let's assume we get permission this week. I would like to plan a Friday night start (my broadband total is limited in peak times - editing that many pages might push it over the edge). Looking at the trial, I got about 25 pages a minute, which is great (if it keeps up) - for 44000 edits we can then be looking at about a 30 hour run - it will be nice if it works - been here before, a big run can sometimes fall over for no apparent reason. I would probably do a quick small trial to test the flagging of re-directs first.Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Did another dummy run - forgot to alter code for the changed the cat name, all OK now - in User:Ronhjones/Sandbox5 - 43498 titles. P.S. I can see two "List of..." in the list Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Thanks, I added them as non-biographical. Still glancing through the list to make sure nothing was missed (as well as the category structure), but everything seems to be good. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Also, with this edit by the bot, could the category be added above stub tags? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be a major change to pick a place to add the category - typically what is done is to get the entire text as a variable and concatenate the category - thus "pagetext" is the whole page "\n" is a new line, and then we add the cat thus...
       pagetext = pagetext+"\n"+"[[Category:Association footballers not categorized by position]]"
I would have to scan the text to find the number of instances of "stub", then find the first one that is within a template and find the insertion point before that template - not easy, more likely to get some error. Trying to get intelligence into a bot is always tricky - you have to try and guess of ll the supid things that editors can do to cause a problem. We would need to go through more trials to get approval for such a change. What we can do without any issues is to add a line (or two) of code to make a new list of articles (having the cat added) that have "stub", and that list of stubs can then be put into some user sub-page. P.S. As 7 days is up on the bot application, I'v added a poke for action. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Alright, it is only a minor wikitext detail so it's no issue. Let me know when all is set to go, I can then give an overview to the FOOTY project, and hopefully the category can start to be reduced. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Approved with a ramp-up - see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RonBot 7. My plan is therefore...
  1. Thursday 01:00 UTC (i.e tonight)- run and do 1000 edits
  2. Friday 01:00 UTC - Next 2000 edits
  3. Saturday 01:00 UTC - Next 3000 edits
  4. Sunday 01:00 UTC - Full run, should finish before my Broadband goes into peak time at 07:00 UTC Monday.
Is that time schedule OK for you, or do you need it slower? Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Sounds great, thanks! S.A. Julio (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Great - All set up for he first wave. Takes about 2h to get all the pages and complete the comparisons to get list of pages to add the category to, so should start the 1000 edits at about 03:00 UTC - best estimate is 25 per minute, so should finish first wave 40 minutes later (all being well...). If wiki servers are too loaded they put in 120 sec timeouts, hopefully that won't be an issue. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 1000 pages edited. 46 minutes to load, edit and save the 1000 pages = 21.7 per minute (plus the initial searching overhead) I looked at a few, all looks OK to me. Onwards and Upwards... Ronhjones  (Talk) 10:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, seems to have gone well, and the category is already being reduced. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Spoke too soon. :-) PC/Network/Modem went a little sick last night. RonBot1 was doing 1 page every 5 minutes, rather than 5 pages a minute. Not a chance that RonBot7 would even get through the first part! Re-boot PC, Re-boot Modem. Try tonight... Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Started this evening - just so I can check - running at full tilt again (>20 pages a minute) Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, great! S.A. Julio (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
2000 wave went fine, will do the 3000 this evening, that leaves 37466 to do, then (to avoid my peak ISP), I'll do 13000 each night, and in 3 nights we are complete (fingers crossed). No redirects found so far. Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Had an idea about stubs - worked out a nice routine to scan characters, one by one, from end of article going backwards, until it found the newline before the {{ (there is a "stub"), and using that as the insertion point. Seems to be working OK Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
3000 wave OK, as I said above now placed just before any stub template. All looking fine. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Seems great! And once the initial run is over, how often will the bot scan to update the category? S.A. Julio (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The first 13000 went in OK and nicely finished at 7am UK (1h before my peak time starts). You have plenty to pick from now. Next 13000 tonight, and then final amount the next night. Then it's been set to run on the 7th of each month. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Found one re-direct with cats - I'll let you decide what to do - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Busts_of_Cristiano_Ronaldo&redirect=no Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright, perfect. The redirect seems to have been added due to an incorrect change to Category:Cristiano Ronaldo, now fixed. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Also, are you able to use AWB to list more than 25,000 items? As I can't use the NoLimits plugin, could you possibly do a search using the list comparer tool? Once the bot has fully populated 'not categorized by position', I was hoping to compare the articles in that category vs. the articles which transclude {{Infobox football biography}}, and get a list of which articles are unique to 'not categorized by position' (i.e. players missing a position category and a football infobox). Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Admins and Bots both have the "apihighlimits" permission. I'll have a look tomorrow Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
See User talk:S.A. Julio/No Infobox Ronhjones  (Talk) 10:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Perfect! Thanks again for all the help. Also, I've created four new position categories (Category:Women's association football central defenders, Category:Women's association football fullbacks, Category:Women's association football wingers, Category:Women's association football utility players), could these be added to the list as well for the next run, like the utility category? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem, I'll put them in tonight, in readiness. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All done - 4 categories added to list 2 Special:Diff/854385523 Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 ICC[edit]

I noticed that you at once got the wrong score of the penalties. You should not be too hurried. Penalties are fast-moving content. Besides I think only you and me who updated it. Anyway thank you for updating it. I was the only one updating MCI-LIV earlier. – Flix11 (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah well only a small typo. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you add the referee's name on MUN-LIV and attendance on Chelsea-Inter, if you log in to the ICC site? Thanks. – Flix11 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Added the referee, though I can't find the attendance. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Soccerway/World Football[edit]

Soccerway] doesn't distiguish between MLS playoffs and MLS regular season games. World Football does distinguish between the two. Calling my change "unnecessary changes" isn't really accurate. Kingjeff (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kingjeff: More in the sense that since Soccerway and Worldfootball are the two sources used, the references can just be added by the 'updated' template, reducing the table width. The removal of Worldfootball was unintentional, I've added it next to the Soccerway source. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

New articles[edit]

Hey, great work creating new articles for tootballers. I just think that fupa.net should not be on there, it's the same as transfermarkt. Any given user can edit matches and stats. I did it myself for me and my team. So, not reliable for me. Kante4 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kante4: Ah I didn't realise, too bad. They always seemed to have the most detailed stats for the lower leagues, I'll discontinue it now though. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, no worries. I like it aswell but you can edit a club if you login. Kante4 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, S.A. Julio. You have new messages at Hhkohh's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hhkohh (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Explained revert on Talk[edit]

Hi Julio,

I re-added the sort option. The reason is explained on Talk:2018_International_Champions_Cup. It really is necessary in order to read many types of data from the table. Great floors (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I've responded to the thread. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
By reverting twice :-) Wikipedia has gotten so friendly these past years. Great floors (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It would be best for there to be a consensus before changing the table. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting isn’t productive at all[edit]

S.A. Julio, please stop reverting my edits. I’m just trying to be friendly and I’m a fan of football. I don’t add the flags just for them to be there. Also, if you don’t like the flags, then change all of the Wiki pages for the AFC Asian Cup. I’m not trying to be rude. I understand. I’m just telling

Neil :) Hispanicfilmmaker (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hispanicfilmmaker: Please see MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, as I have explained flags should not be used in the infobox for decoration, any articles which do use this should have it removed. Now you've moved to outright vandalism with some of your edits like this, please stop. Also, I'd recommend not reverting/disruptively editing while logged out, that is WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologize and I’m sorry[edit]

S.A. Julio. I understand and I’m sorry. Thank you. And I have not been doing anything logged out. I’m very confused when you say that I’m editing while logged out. That may be someone else, but that is not me.

Cheers, Neil :) Hispanicfilmmaker (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hispanicfilmmaker: Alright, though I'd say WP:DUCK applies with 73.215.161.117 (talk · contribs), the same type of edits have been made, all within the last day. Either way, as you've just registered, welcome and hopefully things can be more productive in the future (there's lots of work to be done in your area of interest!). I hope the reverts weren't taken the wrong way, but our policies exist for a reason :) S.A. Julio (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

feedback[edit]

could you please give feedback for:
Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Chinese Taipei FIFA flag
--Mrmw (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Tactical line up French Super Cup[edit]

Fix the image. See this video.--79.46.97.236 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Graphics for football line-ups[edit]

Dear S.A. Julio,

I'd like to learn to create graphics for football games to publish on Wikipedia.

I saw you created the Line-ups graphic for the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final.

Please let me know if you could teach me how to create one of those graphics from scratch.

Kind regards,

Rodro77

Association football categories[edit]

Hello. Looks like you missed Category:Association football utility players off the list. Please see User talk:Ronhjones#Association football positions task. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi. Could you please change the logo at Serie A to the new logo at it:Serie A? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

"A heading should not contain links"[edit]

Probably.

At some of those pages, the headers used to consist of the {{fb}} template, so not only did they contain links, but they also displayed the flag, which made it more difficult to link to the particular sections. You had to check if the specific page did or didn't use the template, and if it did, you had to insert an extra space between the # and the country name, like this: [[1982_FIFA_World_Cup_squads#_Argentina]].

First I did replace the templates with plain unlinked country names, but then I realized it would be odd if a page listing entire detailed national team squads never actually linked to the national team articles. And I could think of no better place for such links than the headers, so I added them. Do you have any other ideas? --Theurgist (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Theurgist: Yes, thanks for removing the fb template from the headings. The best solution is to include the link in prose, such as UEFA Euro 2016 squads. However, it's difficult as prose is only included on squad pages for the last World Cups, though all the countries are linked in the "finalist" templates at the bottom. I've now added links for the 2018 squad article. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
There's the Goalscorers article also. The rule, as stated at MOS:HEADING, implies that such links are not absolutely banned but just undesirable, and then less so if the entire heading, rather than only part of it, is linked. With a regular pattern where every second-level heading consists of just a country name and links to that country's national team, I don't think the linked headings would be that much of a problem, at least no more than artificially and sometimes redundantly making up prose so as to mention the country name once again and link it. And even if a template somewhere at the bottom contains the links, it's only natural that the sections discussing the squads should contain them too. --Theurgist (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello I am Abrahim from arwiki I have seen a number of projects ,and I like it. I have a question How do I create a field diagram showing the starting lineups For a football match thank you. إبراهيم الشعيبي (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Felix Götze[edit]

I suggest that we don't add columns to the career statistics table until there is actually an appearance in the appropriate competition. Kingjeff (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say since he was in the first team and included in the Champions League squad that it is still valid to include the column and first team row. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Toronto - Tigres[edit]

Hola Julio, disculpa por hablarte en español pero ví en tus userbox que lo hablas bien. Quería saber si podrías modificar la formación de Tigres en este partido, en todos lados salió que el planteamiento fue un 4-3-3 pero claramente es un 5-2-1-2 con Nahuel Guzmán de portero; Jesús Dueñas, Jorge Torres Nilo, Juninho, Hugo Ayala y Luis Rodríguez de defensas; Guido Pizarro y Rafael Carioca como medios defensivos; Lucas Zelarayán como medio ofensivo; André-Pierre Gignac y Eduardo Vargas como delatneros (todos de izquierda a derecha viendo al portero abajo y delanteros arriba). La de Toronto es correcta a excepción de que los tres medios serían Osorio, Delgado y Chapman (igual de izquierda a derecha viendo al portero abajo y delanteros arriba). Muchas gracias y te mando un saludo. --Mauricio C. (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mauricio C.: Gracias, arreglé la alineación. ¿Es correcto ahora? S.A. Julio (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Quedó perfecto amigo. Gracias y saludos. --Mauricio C. (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)