User talk:Pal/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive from July 1, 2005 through August 5, 2006

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Pal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

[edit] Football links

Hi,

I noticed you were new and had been editing football articles, so I thought I'd give you a few links that it took me a while to find. Hope they're useful.

CTOAGN 15:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shorts' patterns

You would indeed need to change every page that uses the template, which is quite a few last time I checked. I'm not sure it's worth it, as as far as I'm aware, no club has notable patterning on their shorts (usually just piping around the edges), which I wouldn't consider part of the general description of the kit. Although if you know of a club that has halved, striped or hooped shorts, we might have to do it. ed g2s • talk 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Are those the correct edits to add the possibility of modifying the shorts to incorporate patterns?"
Yes. ed g2s • talk 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Papel(b)on

Thanks... MusiCitizen 22:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category Edits

Why are you removing the category link to "English football clubs" from club pages? It is entirely relevant for club pages to link there. - Pal 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason I wouldn't put Tommy Tynan in Category:English footballers and Category:English football Bornintheguz 22:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Which is why you wouldn't put Chelsea F.C. in Category:English_football_clubs and Category:Football (soccer) clubs. But why shouldn't an English football club link to a category specifically made for English football clubs? - Pal 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Which is why I wouldn't put Burnley F.C. in Category:Burnley F.C. and Category:English football clubs Bornintheguz 23:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackburn Rovers

Hi, thanks for editing the Blackburn Rovers article. I've reverted some your changes and I thought I should let you know why. As I tried to explain in the edit summary, the introduction is supposed to serve as a summary of the entire article -- for readers who just want quick information -- as recommended in the Wikipedia style guide. I'm sure it can be improved though... so feel free to edit again bearing in mind its function. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category edits

Hi. I completely disagree. What the Michael Jackson example is saying is simply "don't put articles in categories that aren't useful", not that an article is allowed to appear in a category AND the category's category, which is the case with the clubs. In particular, it says An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism. - swap Deism for each club - for thus, ABC F. C. should only appear in Category:ABC F. C. and not in that category's category as well. When all of the club categories are in the English Football Clubs category, there would be no point in listing the club articles there themselves - each club will have a valid entry in that category, for which the main article will be the club. This seems correct to me, and meets the categorization guidelines. Stephenb (Talk) 13:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • You say why isn't it suggested that Microsoft Office should only be in a cat. called Category:Microsoft Office since that category exists? Likewise, it isn't suggested that the Michael Jackson article should only appear in Category:Michael Jackson? - well, that's not the part of categorisation I was arguing about - although it also says An article will often be in several categories. (i.e. it can still be in >1 categories). My point was about the subsequent rule An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, which you transgress with your categorisation. I take your point about someone wanting to see lists of other English clubs from a particular club, though. It's a tough call, but I believe the rules are right - the categories are not navigation aids, but categorization! Stephenb (Talk) 16:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • My point in bringing in the Michael Jackson and Microsoft Office examples was to illustrate that if the an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory takes precidence, then every single article on Wikipedia should only be in its own category (in which case they'd never be in more than one category). - Well, no, that's specious logic. Think about it a bit - a car could be listed under both vehicles and consumer products. Or more simply, a sandwich could be under food and items named after a person. None of these are subcategories of each other. To make it clear - I'm NOT suggesting that all articles need to belong to one category and one category only - just that they belong to the best categories (plural).
    • Also, the rule you mention was arbitrarily inserted into the Wikipedia:Categorization page by a user in June. Prior to that there was an exception that allowed categories to be in both categories and subcategories. If you observe the discussion page you'll see that there's still no consensus on the subject. Personally, I'd argue that this rule seems to contradict the spirit of the Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article guideline. - Well, go argue it on the discussion page of the article then! Arbitrarily inserted? It seems to have been accepted since that edit in June, at least as it stands - if you so strongly disagree, go do something about it. I'm working with rules that I find now and agree with. Stephenb (Talk) 08:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Rules, guidelines, whatever... I'm actually not interested in doing anything further - I happened to change two articles I came across while categorising uncategorised categories (if you get my drift) and changed them according to the categorisation page. Hence, I haven't bothered to revert them back again - I don't care that much! But its nice to know that your argument changed from "This is the proper use of categories" to "well, it's what a bunch of other people have done" :-) and you at least understand the logic by which I made my changes. Stephenb (Talk) 14:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MLB infoboxes

Hello,
I am nearing completion of the infoboxes for each MLB team and I wanted to run it by a few individuals before I ran it by the project and published them. Check out a finished one here. Please focus on the info box and not the rest of the page. Here are some points I wanted some feedback on:

  • was not sure about how to handle "notes" about championships and retired numbers so I stuck the notes on the template
  • I limited the infobox to MAJOR LEAGUE info only, no Western League and no other minor league info
  • stuck Jackie Robinson onto template rather than on each team

Any feedback, especially constructive, is much appreciated, have a good one!--CrazyTalk 22:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding listing the club's current owners, since the infobox lists the history of the information, I am afraid the infobox could become rather lengthy if we start listing "current" items; I am afraid people will start listing current TV stations, current owner, current payroll (just look at the mess on the BoSox page). Also, managers and owners will have their own page listed on the infobox under "categories" (I am working on a template for those pages, too, BTW). We could, however, list the current owners in the current roster section maybe(?). What do you think?--CrazyTalk 06:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I was screwing around with the MLB table on your sandbox, and I could not get it to work like I was wanting it to. But I did figure out what to do instead if you want it to fit nicely. What you want to do is, for the NL, have the table be 3 rows by 3 columns; row 1 is colspace="3" and says "Nat'l League", row 2 is 3 columns for East/Cent/West, row 3 is 3 blank columns. Inside the 3 blank columns, you insert another table listing the teams in that division; you make the 3 tables the same height in pixels and just set the cell heights evenly using percentages. I do not have a saved version trying it like that so I do not have an example. I have some other things to work on, but if you cannot figure it out, I can tinker with it later. If you ask me, you might as well put the table on the MLB page now because it is beter than what is there now, but that is your call. Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Keynes Dons F.C., Wimbledon F.C.

POV vandals are active again on Milton Keynes Dons F.C. and Wimbledon F.C.. It would be more convincing if I weren't the only one reverting, so your assistance would be welcome. --Concrete Cowboy 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. --Concrete Cowboy 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive

Hi Pal,

The Football AID is restarting. The next project article is to be selected on January 1, 2006. Please look at the nominations and take part actively. Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Pal, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page. Thanks! Googie Man(Talk), 15:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you have any interest in Template:MLB

please join the current discussion at Template talk:MLB. As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball your opinion is particularly valued. Thanks. 66.167.139.143 08:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Template:FA Premier League

Hi - I have (possibly temporarily) reverted your edits as they corrupted the table as it appeared in all of the Premiership club articles. Not being a template expert, I can't say what caused the problem - however, looking at the reverted table, with its increased amount of information, I think I prefer it! I have also reverted FA Premier League as the two tables together looked odd! Anyway, please check the articles using the template if you make similar edits. Thanks and/or sorry :-) Stephenb (Talk) 09:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intertoto

Hi

Today neither Serbia nor Montenegro are UEFA countries

Bye

--Lcmarzulli 16:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Boston Pilgrims"

Interesting...Thanks. (I had gotten my info. from baseball-reference.com) BurmaShaver 19:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] can you stop changing what i ORIGINALLY put??

for the UEFA Cup 2005/06 stop changing it from "an easy win" to simply "beat". i was the one who put that there seconds after the final, so its my original work. i dont know if your a Boro fan, but leave it the way it is PLEASE. I will change it under these conditions though: Give me the stats for the game. things like posession percentage, number of shots, fouls, this and that. and i want the site you get it from too please. if i think the game was even, i will gladly allow it to be changed to whatever you feel is needed.

fair deal?

[edit] Your recent edits to Boston College

Hi! You mistakenly labeled a legitimate edit as vandalism on the Boston College article. This edit isn't vandalism; in fact, it's a helpful edit to the article as it helps the BC article become more uniform with other private American colleges. Also, the user explained his intentions and reasoning behind his edits on the talk page, so please be a bit more careful when reverting other people's edits. I'm assuming it was just a mistake (a very minor one, at that), so I just wanted to let you know, so you'll be a bit more careful in the future. Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. - This is a passage from the first sentence of the second paragraph in Wikipedia's policy on vandalism. The anon edit was not vandalism, and, again, it was a valid edit. As such, I'm going to restore the edit. If you wish to continue the discussion, we should do so on the article's talk page (copied to BC's talk page) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Keynes Dons FC

No worries - it was a good edit but the opposite point of view made an intro that read a bit messy. If you read back through the history, you'll see the carnage of previous edit wars! --Concrete Cowboy 18:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dodgers edits

Okay, this is the guy from the LA Dodger page. Now, I don't want to fight with you. I put the information of the Dodgers current standings in as a refletion of what the Ned Colleti era has brought. The two things are directly connected. Whatever moves Colleti made bring about certain seasnonal results. It's not opinion, it is all truthful fact. Please, if you have a different few, then tell me. I simply don't see how it dosen't relate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.10.103.144 (talk • contribs)

[edit] FSS teams participating in UEFA CL/Cup

This is not the same as the World Cup. For the World Cup, the national team was playing under the Football Association of Serbia and Montenegro and they have decieded to wait until after the world up to split football associations. It's clear right now that all the teams you switched from SER-SCG all fall under the umbrellea of the Football Association of Serbia. How can a team represent a football federation that does not exist?--Lowg 02:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My edits of updating a flag are not inccurate since the team currently represents Serbia, and shouldn't the flag represent the team the country plays for? I honestly think it's a little ridiculous that you are deducting so much from a trigramme in a table on UEFA.com, while the team page for Crvena Zvezda on UEFA.com lists Serbia as the country they represent for the Champions League. If there is some source (article?) that explicitly states that FSS teams in 2006-2007 competions represent a non-existant federation? I also think this a ridiculous thing to ask for arbitration, but if feel that is the only solution, then do as you wish. --Lowg 16:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The flag should represent what country the team is representing, it is ridiculious that you still are pushing to add a flag of a non-existant country in a current event. Even at the time of qualification, the clubs you keep changing the flags were representing Serbia -- Red Star, OFK Beograd and Partizan are based out of Belgrade for Pete's sake. The comment you previously made that "last season when there was no Serbia" shows me you do not understand that Serbia and Montenegro was a political union. You can clarify as much as you want that the team gained entry to qualification through the Football Assocation of Serbia and Montenegro which I think is perfectly clear right now in note that's right next to the flag and team name.--Lowg 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is not a compromise, we have the note that is very clear and concise next to each entry that clearly states which football federation the team gained entry to CL. Why you are objecting to the flag of the country the team represents is beyond me.--Lowg 19:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reporting me? And how many reverts have you been doing? You are a hypocrit who has started an edit war for the stupidest reasons (trigrammes) and refuse to see the obvious and clear facts of a current events article.--Lowg 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Premier League FAC

That's my task for this week sorted then. The biggest concern is references - there's quite a few unreferenced statements, which are bound to result in objections. Oldelpaso 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)