User talk:Hseldon10/Archive Mex2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cramireztigres.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cramireztigres.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UANL Tigres

I reverted your edit to UANL Tigres article. According to Template talk:Football kit, only kit colours should be showed.--Panarjedde 22:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican League final placing

You recently reverted my edits to the Mexican teams' final places. I've already told you that using general statements like "did not qualify for playoffs" is not only not helpful, but implies that a team finished in a respectable position, even if they finished dead last like Tigres did. You seem to think that this is some personal attack on your team. Well, guess what? For being last, Tigres will be relegated to Segunda Division, so pretty soon everyone will see how "disrespectable" Tigres is. Saying a team finished last when they did is not an insult. Besides, other club articles like Wigan Athletic and VfB Stuttgart are specific and use numbers instead of "did not qualify for playoffs" to describe a team's final place, so why should Mexican teams be any different?--DethFromAbove 21:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Point: The Mexican league system for tallying up final positions is so complicated we shouldn't bother trying to decide who ended up where.
My Point: Current "consensus" is too vague and not at all helpful.
If there are better, albeit more complicated, ways of presenting accurate information, why can't we do those? Information for the Mexican league should be complicated because the Mexican league is unique in its determination of final positions. You said the only fair way of judging would be to present their league, percentual, playoff, and group positions for all teams. Why can't we do that?--DethFromAbove 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Instinkt

This user, Instinkt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) made a large number of changes to articles on Mexican football teams, which I suspect, (partly due to your objections on his talk page and partly because he deleted a line about the Chivas winning the championship on Dec 10, as well as other edits I recognize as wrong) are pura porqueria. I reverted all his recent edits, you may wish to review what I did as I'm not familiar with many of the players or recent player trades. You can review his edits by clicvking on "Contribs" above. Saludos desde Chicago! Tubezone 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree about assuming good faith, but in the case of potential mass vandalism, I would rather revert and let the editors sort out what should stay. Unfortunately in some cases bad information has remained in articles for months. Thank you for reviewing and correcting the articles. ¡Feliz navidad! Tubezone 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hola! Gracias por tu mensaje. Es protocolo común en Wikipedia (en términos de "transfers" y cambios al roster de un equipo) esperar a que los jugadores que se han declarado como transferibles encuentren otro club y/o se oficialice su salida. En el fútbol mexicano en especial, es muy común que jugadores se encuentren transferibles, no encuentren club y se queden donde mismo; por lo tanto, mientras no se declare que un jugador oficialmente se ha unido a otra institución. Lo que tú estás implicando con tus cambios a la página de Tigres es que los jugadores que estan en la lista "Out", no pertenecen a Tigres ya. Eso no es verdad, los jugadores se encuentran "transferibles" y en posibilidades de salir, pero no están "Out", o fuera de la institución. En eso me base para hacer los edits a la página. ¿Satisfecho? No lo hago de mala leche ni mucho menos, sólo estoy tratando de que la información sea la correcta y no se preste a interpretaciones erróneas. Saludos, Instinkt 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexican League (again)

I suspect you didn't understand me last time we went over this so I'll go over it again. Here is final league table before the liguilla [1]. I'm sure you know that it directly influences a team's passing into the next round, like it did with Pachuca when they tied Santos 2-2 on aggregate. Pachuca went on because they finished first in the league table, and Santos finished ninth. Thus, we can infer that a team with a higher standing on the final table takes precedence over one with a lower placing. Now what I'm trying to do is extrapolate this to hold over a team's placing after the liguilla (playoff standings). Pachuca is first because they won the final. Had they lost they would've been second. Chivas is third because they lost to América in semis but finished second in the league. Cruz Azul finished 4th in the league, so Guadalajara takes precedence over Cruz Azul. The same goes for the quarterfinalists. Tecos finished fifth in the league, so they're fifth in playoffs. Atlas finished 6th, so they're sixth. Now, San Luis finished 7th in the league, but were eliminated in the repechaje. Thus, they finish 8th in the playoffs. Tigres, who finished 8th in the league, are 7th in the playoffs, behind Atlas. The last quarterfinalist is Santos, because they finished 9th in the league. Morelia is 10th in the playoffs because they finished 10th in the league, behind San Luis.

Like you asked, I've presented all relevant info in the infobox for club articles, including playoff league placing (which I just finished talking about), league placing, and group placing. I hardly see how this isn't "fair" or whatever, since all I'm doing is extrapolating some info to hold true over more info, but if you truly believe so, I'd like to hear why.--DethFromAbove 12:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)