User talk:Italia2006

This is Italia2006's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Hello, I noticed that you are rather new here (at least as a registered user). I further noticed that you have changed the infoboxes of various UEFA Champions League season articles to display a flag on the left side of the top goalscorer of the respective year. Well, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit, but nevertheless, there are guidelines which every user should follow.

One of these guidelines is WP:FLAG, which states that emphasizing the nationality of a person by using flags should be avoided. Another reason not to include these into infoboxes is the restricted space of the boxes. Adding a flag is, in this case, just a case of unnecessary decoration as it simply disrupts the accessibility of the information there. The final and perhaps most important reason is that it is general and wide-spread consensus not to include any flags for persons into the boxes, at least in articles under the auspices of WP:FOOTY (I don't know how other projects handle this).

So, it's basically not the reluctance against your contributions but rather the binding policies which led to the reversal of your edits. So, in a nutshell, I would like to ask you to remove the flags in order to avoid further conflicts. By the way, please note as well that content disputes should be settled by discussing, not by reverts and re-reverts of edits as the latter is not very well-liked here and could possibly lead to a block (see also WP:3RR). Have a nice day, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can put the club emblem of the top scorer in the info boxes? I think that is appropriate. PatoMilan

Technically, there is a way - but there is also WP:MOSICON, which does not allow this, I think. However, just to be sure, you should ask at WT:FOOTY or the talk page of WP:FSATF for opinions on that matter. On another note, the complete Manual of Style can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. From there, you can also access a lot of other helpful pages for both Wikipedia beginners and seasoned editors. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not possible to add club logos to the infoboxes. This would be against the Fair Use guidelines, as non-free images must not be used for purely decorative purposes. – PeeJay 22:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Francesco Totti. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Lukas Podolski, Thomas Müller, and Cacau play as strikers or wingers for their clubs, and usually for their country as well, the current official DFB squad list (found here) lists all three as midfielders and they should therefore also be listed as such on our squad list. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (PatoMilan) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is a violation of username policy as a misleading username. Impersanating Alexandre Pato (Pato) who plays for A.C. Milan (Milan). If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Ok so how do I change the username without losing my contributions list or information, because Wikipedia's change of username page is somewhat confusing PatoMilan (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will be glad to help you here! Could you please list the username you would want now? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Italia2006"? PatoMilan (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, so just follow the instructions here: Copy the following text {{subst:Renameuser|CURRENT=PatoMilan|NEW=Italia2006|REASON=Current username is a violation of username policy as a misleading username. Impersonating [[Alexandre Pato]] (Pato) who plays for [[A.C. Milan]] (Milan).}} Then click here and paste the text at the very bottom of the page. Regards. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] It seems you are having a little trouble with this. Copy the whole line from {{subst:Renameuser|CURRENT=[...][[A.C. Milan]] (Milan).}}. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Italia2006 (talk · contribs) is already registered. Try this request for rename change here. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally, I don't think that this is an obvious violation, especially given that both 'Pato' and 'Milan' have meanings beyond the one identified. PatoMilan could place a note on their user page noting that they are unrelated to Alexandre Pato.

PatoMilan - if you wish to keep your name, you could respectfully decline to change it and suggest that Avenue X seek further opinions at WP:RFCN.

But if you want to go ahead with the name change anyway, please let me know. –xeno^talk 18:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a username change would be best, to avoid any future trouble that may arise. No one can claim I am impersonating anyone if Italia2006 is my username, so I would like to go ahead with the change. Thanks, PatoMilan (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok =) Your request should be processed on or before 25 August. –xeno^talk 18:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you usurp Italia2006 as your username, not Italia2006@23&12. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told Italia2006 is already taken. How bout "San Siro at Milanello"PatoMilan (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please usurp your username to Italia2006 (talk · contribs) fast, (trust me it won't be a prob at WP:CHUU, if it is, just ping me!) otherwise, you risk being blocked for impersonation. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Here is the original discussion that was had with respect to the club names for use on the Ronaldo article. If you look through the archives of WT:FOOTY you will see that the issue has come up many, many times without any kind of project-wide consensus being reached. I would love for the issue to be settled once and for all but it needs to be a project-wide consensus. The fact that many/most articles use "Internazionale" and "Milan" is interesting but does not prove a consensus has been reached (in fact if you look through the histories of various articles you'll see that starting about three or four years ago several editors began a program of changing these club names and while discussions ensued no overall consensus was reached and those editors continued to make the changes) it just demonstrates that those articles have been changed. Personally I feel that since this is an English language encyclopedia and a general one at that (i.e., not a football encyclopedia) that we should use the names that are most used in the English press which are, by far, "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan". But again, I would love a consensus to be reached and for WP:FOOTY to make it "official". SQGibbon (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why in every UEFA Champions League season article is Inter Milan "Internazionale" and A.C. Milan "Milan". Wikipedia should use the names for Italian clubs that are most often used in Italy. I can tell you that no one calls Internazionale "Inter Milan", for which reason no one calls Milan "A.C. Milan". It's Internazionale, and Milan. I don't see what the discussion is about. Italia2006 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Italian Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. We should use the names most commonly used by English speaking people in order to maximize understanding and minimize confusion. With "Milan" it's especially problematical since it's not clear for English speaking people outside of Italy or who aren't enthusiastic/expert football fans which Milanese team is be referred to. By using "Internazionale" and "Milan" it's like we're trying to make things as difficult as possible for the general reader. But like I said, this should be brought up at WT:FOOTY for project-wide consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just saying though Ronaldo's article is the only one that uses "Inter Milan" and "AC Milan". Also if people are confused as to which Milanese team it is they can simply click on the link. Italia2006 (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit all the archive of 2002 FIFA World Cup qualification and 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification to this format:

2006 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round#Group 2

Please help me to that.

Thanks! Banhtrung1 (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what it looks like already? Italia2006 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not believe neither policy nor universal consensus exists regarding the explicit display of player names, the vast majority of club season articles, especially the major ones, utilize a player's last name or common name in instances where only one name is displayed, such as match displays. The notable exception is FC Barcelona. But the issued was addressed at length on its talk page and further addressed at greater length at Wikipedia's dispute resolution, which I have copied below for your convenience, with the mediation favoring the use of common/family names over jersey names on grounds of consistency within a project and clarity.

Your cross-season consistency argument was mentioned in the Barcelona case, with an implying conclusion that although multi-season consistency is good, it does not have more weight over consistency across a project, in this case WikiProject Football, in instances where contradiction occurs. Furthermore, the argument for cross-season consistency is baseless if the initial format used was less-favored, which appeared to be the case for Barcelona and this current issue. As a result, I strongly recommend adhering to the current popular project usage of common/family names by keeping "Diarra" for this season's page and changing "Lass" to "L. Diarra" on the previous seasons' pages. Bobby (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cards make it difficult to read those articles and in an accessible manner find out when the goals have been scored. And with all due respect, cards can change games, but are not part of the end result unless one team goes down to six players, resulting in a forfeited match. With regards to Italian matches, I follow a simple template, where I just type in round, teams, goals and result, all in all to save editing time, since I've done Calcio research on a massive scale (from 1984 onwards). Regards//J Roslagen (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you have to add card information to your articles, just don't remove card information from current season articles or any others. In a word, don't remove, don't add, don't worry. Much thanks to your creative skills btw, Regards, Italia2006 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and transliterate the five regional football federations in Spain (list) without an enWiki counterpart. Football federation pages are always titled in English and the English names of these federations are listed here so redlinks should go to a page like Country Basque Football Federation instead of es:Federación Vasca de Fútbol. Bobby (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of having links to nonexistent pages when a real page, albeit in Spanish, is available. But whatever, this is your article and not wikipedia's so go ahead. Italia2006 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what your saying, but make sure you create articles for each and every federation of Spanish football. Otherwise obviously it's better to have a link to an English article for these federations than the Spanish one, clearly. Italia2006 (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah what I was doing was just eliminating the need of linking to esWiki, that's all. Unlike most La Liga referees, the federations probably meet the notability requirements on the English site so I just created them. Also I'm really sorry if you feel your edits to the page have been insignificant. I'm trying my best to learn and apply the general project consensus for the numerous minor details, and it's very welcoming when another editor such as yourself provides alternative viewpoints. That allows us to decide which is better, ultimately improving the article. If you ever want to discuss edits in private feel free to send me an email at [email protected]. Keep up the good work! Bobby (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's cool, I appreciate the work your doing. I'll change the links on the 09-10 and 10-11 Real season pages to the English articles for the federations in a little bit. If I've seemed stubborn through all this, it's only because I put extreme importance on the consistency of articles dealing with the same topic, i.e., Real Madrid season articles. Italia2006 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you helped work on the 2010–11 SV Werder Bremen season article. Would you be able to help with 2011–12 SV Werder Bremen season article? Kingjeff (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I was hoping someone would begin work on an article for the current season. Sure, no problem. Italia2006 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to provide edit summaries when editing article. Thanks and keep up with the good work! ;) Luxic (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I used "quarterfinal" was simply because that was what the Copa del Rey main page used. MOS:HYPHEN doesn't provide an explicit example for this case (although I didn't look through these), but the second use case implies this is a US v British English preference. Since the Copa del Rey is a Spanish tournament, either spelling would satisfy the MOS. However note that RFEF usage in Spanish uses no hyphens, implying to me the direct translation is unhyphenated. Recent Copa del Rey articles have also omitted hyphens so for now I reverted the edits to match the main page. If you decide to add hyphens in all CDR articles, make sure to also modify Template:Fb round2 2011-12 Copa del Rey QF and parallel ones for previous seasons/rounds. Thanks! Bobby (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for helping me out. Would you please also edit the time above the article (in CET)when you edit the table.

Hey About Cisse: Goals only count for the first club they played for. If they transfer to a new club, new goals won't be added up to their clubs from old club.

Here is official list of golden shoe: http://www.eurotopfoot.com/gb/soulierdor.php3

That's why Aleksandrs Čekulajevs still has 46 goals, he went to new club in winter transfer window, but again this goals for his new club won't be added up at the ones scored for his previous club.

Matthi1603 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I reverted your edits to 2011–12 Real Madrid C.F. season regarding the a.e.t. display. Note that Template:Football_box_collapsible (the one used on the page) and Template:Football box are similar but separate templates. If you feel the football box a.e.t. display is better, please edit it on the Template:football box collapsible page for changes to be consistent across Wikipedia. Thanks. Bobby (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is important discussion about messi's page at [footbal]

the discussion about :

1-adding back the assists which have been removed ( and i think its really important ) especially most notable players have it and even less known player than messi have this statistics which is important for any striker .(remember the debate about messi vs ronalod have lots about messi makes more assists than ronaldo )

2-adding back the youth and under -23 goals because they are different statistics from senior one and u cant merge them together . since fifa themself separate them differently .

3-about the table of messi goals and if its important info or just long statistics(useless one).

Thank you all . adnan^talk 12 pm 16 october 2012 (UTC)

Then why in every UEFA Champions League season article is Inter Milan "Internazionale" and A.C. Milan "Milan". Wikipedia should use the names for Italian clubs that are most often used in Italy. I can tell you that no one calls Internazionale "Inter Milan", for which reason no one calls Milan "A.C. Milan". It's Internazionale, and Milan. I don't see what the discussion is about. Italia2006 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

So if you feel like Internazionale and Milan should be represented as they are in Italy across Wikipedia, why on earth do you feel the need to change team names for countries in regards to how the team is called, that you obviously are not clear on? subzzee (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I go by the names in UEFA Champions League articles which should be the standard for this site. Olympique Lyonnais is LYON. A.C. Milan is MILAN. Hamburger SV is HAMBURG. You make it sound like I ruin "your" articles by a simple name change? You're the one who refuses to follow the standard on this site. Italia2006 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, there is no agreed upon standard for any team name on this site. How the team names are represented on the Champions League articles therefore is not necessarily correct either. Easiest solution therefore is to actually go by the teams name. The actual name the team goes by. As you correctly stated in the argument you posted above. Maybe one day there will be an agreed upon standard, but for now there isn't, so since you are not the author of the articles that I have published on Wikipedia, I would appreciate if you respect the fact that I would like to call a team by it's name, and not refer to it by it's geographical location, or some kinf of nick name. Thanks subzzee (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, but I can assure you in this regard your articles are one of a kind. No other page on this site calls Olympique Lyonnais by its full name. Even the season articles for Lyon use "Lyon" not "Olympique Lyonnais." And Lyon is by no means a nickname or an unofficial name. Italia2006 (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many errors on the Olympique Lyonnais season articles, in regards to how the teams are called, such as Hanover for Hannover 96, or simply Salzburg for Red Bull Salzburg (SV Austria Salzburg is the city's other club), so I would rather not imitate mistakes, but rather call a team by it's name, and not make up a new name for it. Thanks for the exchange, you can delete this convo now, unless you still have something to add, we can continue this argument on my talk page, but I am not going to write a book on yours. Cheers. subzzee (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverse my edit on CL standings on this page? Stigni (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You rollback a page and say look at these three pages and you rollback also that... What do you think I am? Stupid? Stigni (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT USE TEMPLATES. You've already been told this several times before. Whatever edits you have made in that regard you should reverse. And I said look at those other pages before I realized you had ruined them too. Italia2006 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say why you are against the Template? Because I don't heard a valide reason. Can you answer here or here? Stigni (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles have never used a Template before and there is no reason to start now, apart from the fact that you removed 718 bytes of information. Templates are unnecessary especially for such a small table as the Group standings table. Please refrain from using this in the future and reverse previous edits. Best, Italia2006 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ok, this is not ok... Sound legit. Stigni (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics happens once every 4 years. This is an annual competition. Yes, the first is ok, the second is not. I'd really appreciate it if you reverted ALL edits made in this fashion. Again, I don't know why I have to tell you this when it is clear you have been told this REPEATEDLY. Best, Italia2006 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If something is useful you use it only once time every 4 years? I would like to use it every days. Stigni (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your thing is not useful, it's annoying. Having to constantly revert your edits is a drain and a distraction. Now just stop and admit defeat, because you have already been reprimanded several times by other users. Italia2006 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other user said that my template is ok, and I change only Man Uni because the existing table and my template is the same, so I try to copy the ManUni in the Arsenal page and change that too in the hope that you do not reverse and edit that not modify anything in the layout.--Stigni (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Shield is no longer considered a competitive competition as of this season. It's been moved to pre season friendly status. Please don't change competitive goal totals anymore. A prime example of this is the fact that Branislav Ivanovic was given a red card in the match but wasn't held out of any of the regular season matches.

Then you better change the main article: "If the Premier League champions also won the FA Cup then the league runners-up provide the opposition. Often seen as a "glorified friendly" which ranks below the FA Cup and League Cup, the fixture is a recognised football Super Cup." Italia2006 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to have one line at the top and none below it. Kingjeff (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO, it's not because you're the only one who uses it. Stop with the no bars element. Btw, thank you for destroying the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season article. I greatly appreciate your destruction of my work. Italia2006 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OWN. Kingjeff (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you did is WP:OWN. That format is in use in every other article currently and you changed it to to suit your opinion of what it should look like. Go ahead and change the no bars back, I'll just keep reversing it. How does it feel now? Italia2006 (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one that said "Btw, thank you for destroying the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season article. I greatly appreciate your destruction of my work." Kingjeff (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I'm the one who contributed whose work is it? I did not say the article was mine. In fact what YOU did most closely resembles article ownership. Italia2006 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you revert it then? Kingjeff (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to but there were "conflicting intermediate edits" and I haven't had time to write it from scratch, all over again. That's why. Italia2006 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to "write it from scratch." You go back to a previous edition of the article and copy the templates you want and paste it in the relevant section. Kingjeff (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but why did you change all of it in the first place? I'm honestly baffled. Italia2006 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is the matches were not up to date. I find it bothersome to put in information for opposing teams in. Kingjeff (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would've done that no problem. It's just difficult having to update every team's article, since I work in all the major leagues and minor ones as well. Italia2006 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Stigni (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you don't want my edit on the club season, when I created that template I was loyal on the existing layout as possible so I don't understand why you don't agree with that.--Stigni (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simple, we've never used a template before, there is no need for one, and even aesthetically it is unpleasing. For example there is no need for the green and blue lines, the dimensions of the box are incorrect (Width of template is 190 and 28, normal width is 175 and 20). Please, if you like the template continue to use it in the main article, but leave the club season articles to me. In addition, what is the purpose of having the template? To make editing easier by shortening the amount, correct? Well if I don't mind having to do them over and over, then what is the point? The template becomes redundant. Italia2006 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal width is 175/20? I don't think so... Here it seems to be 190/28, so why we have different width for PL and CL in the same page? The green/blue lines are useful until a team qualify then we change it from "border=blue" to "bgc=blue", why on the club season we don't have something visual to indicate who is qualified and who is not? Did you have seen my last edit? I have used the same style as the PL table or you reverse without looking what I do?Stigni (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal width for Champions League boxes. I have seen all your edits. Please stick with the correct method. Italia2006 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that you do not agree with unifying the width/layout of the PL and CL. For me that is crazy! The story of "we have done it till now" is not a motivation. Stigni (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir that is exactly what I'm saying. A league table and group standings are two different things and are dealt with with two different kinds of tables. And yes, "we have do it till now" is a motivation. There is no need for a template, I don't know how many different times and how many different ways I can get that across to you, and I would advise you to stop editing all these articles to meet what you think should be the standard, because regardless of any "edit warring" sanctions you put me under, your edits will be reversed. Best, Italia2006 (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep on insisting on having all those lines? Also, there is a template that has the group standings. There is no need to put a table in the article since there is a template with the table. The whole purpose of the template is so that the table can be changed in one place which would show up in multiple articles all at the same time. Kingjeff (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the only articles with your template are the Bayern Munich one and the main Champions League article. It's not that hard to update each individually. And without the lines looks ugly. Stop trying to change articles to what you think they should look like and get with the program. Look at all the other season articles for teams in the Champions League this season. Italia2006 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want ownership of all the articles? Kingjeff (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingjeff that there some other way to do the article because your excuses is quite obscure because there is not an article with same layout of another, so you can't say "look the other CL teams' pages". Stigni (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff is taking ownership of these articles not me and yes, do look at the the CL sections, not the whole page but the Champions League section specifically. There is a standard. Aside from that I find it rather irritating and ironic that Kingjeff is accusing me of article ownership when he completely changed the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season article to suit his preferences. I refuse to allow the same with the Bayern Munich article. No other article uses no bars, and the setup now in place is the one in place on every single Champions League team season article. In addition, Kingjeff made mention of the no bars being more aesthetically pleasing. To whom? Himself? If that's not article ownership I don't know what is. I'm going along with a consistent standard that has been used every season. Italia2006 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking ownership. From what I've seen, it looks like you a dictating what you want in articles. You can be overruled through consensus. You have failed to keep the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season which is why I decided to make the changes I did. I've told you you colud change it back and you still have failed to do so. So, when are you going to get to that article? Anyways, there will be consensus on the issue of both the bars and the ucl group stage table template. Please stop with your controlling ways. Kingjeff (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this discussion. Stigni (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the consensus for years. You're the one who's trying to change everything. And thank you for ignoring the main point I made above, which is that the form you are using is alone on Wikipedia while I am simply using the format that has been used for years and that is being used in all of the articles but yours this season. As for the Schalke article I haven't had the time and don't even know where to begin. Italia2006 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoted above in another discussion on your talk page as saying "the reason is the matches were not up to date. I find it bothersome to put in information for opposing teams in." This clearly explains why I changed it on 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season. I have barely been on that page at all since that discussion and it looks like you haven't been on it either. From the previous discussion, it sounds like you have taken on too many club season articles. So, you, as an editor on Wikipedia, have a choice of either editing the 2012–13 FC Schalke 04 season or not editing this article. I haven't done anything to prevent you from doing so. So, instead of turning this into an edit war, how about constructively discussing the issues and come to a consensus. Kingjeff (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do so. I just think that it is more professional to have a consistent look across all the season pages. That is what I am trying to achieve. And yes I edit and contribute to every season article for every major and minor European league. The task can get daunting. Italia2006 (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are too many club season articles for one person to enforce a strict code of how a club season article should look. Anyways, one person should not be determining it as you are trying to do. However, you do have the freedom to help build consensus on issues that you feel that need to be dealt with. Kingjeff (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note that it's not using the template?? please, view the code, you are reverting without note the code I introduced. - tot-futbol (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer my sincerest apologies. The appearance led me to believe it was the template. Your code is perfectly fine. Italia2006 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the style guide for make these changes that you insist in doing it? Are you following any style guide for changing name of Betis to Real Betis, and some players only with the surname, which can make confusions, it's explicit its name for some reason. If you don't know what are the shortened names for some teams and players, please do not change it. I am agree with constructive edits, but not for applying hardly rigorous changes, imposing personal criteria and the worst: changing without knowledge about someone is editing. I am Spaniard and I hear everyday how is named some players and teams in the shortened form, I am 200km out of Valencia, and you? Please, do not insist to make changes imposing your personal point of view. Be respectable with the work of others and the consensus accepted between the rest of editors. - tot-futbol (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The style guide I follow is the consensus of all the other Spanish football season articles. There should be no confusion with player surnames only, because that is why every name is a link and not simply block lettering. As for the Real Betis and Real Valladolid dilemma, I merely follow what is used on the other season articles for the Spanish teams, including the 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, and 2012–13 Real Madrid season articles, along with the articles for Barcelona, Atlético Madrid and Málaga, Sevilla, and the Real Betis and Real Valladolid season articles themselves. I am well aware that Real Betis is simply Betis, and Real Valladolid is Valladolid, but this is the English Wikipedia. There is an enormous consensus on the processes I've been using because I contribute to almost a hundred season articles in European football, and I have not myself come up with any of the guidelines I follow. Finally, I haven't "shortened" any names on the Valencia season page. Perhaps that was another User. If you feel Betis should be represented as such, then feel free to change it on all the other articles first. Italia2006 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you taking issue with? Kingjeff (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complete change of format. It's unnecessary and I can't understand why you insist on all this unnecessary information. "Fixtures and results" = Matches. You don't need a three word phrase to explain to readers that the section details games Dortmund have played. The removal of the links is unnecessary and the format you've installed is cluttered. Why would you put the league table and Champions League table after the matches? And the "group standings", "group table summary" and all these divisions are not needed and over complicate the format. But these are external complaints. I want to know why you insist on changing the format of these articles completely. At least I can see I didn't come up with the format I follow, but you did yours, so why do you insist on having it your way? Italia2006 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a link to the Borussia Dortmund article 40 or 50 times throughout the article. I don't understand why such a small thing like "Fixtures and results" = Matches is such a big deal. The "group standings", "group table summary" and all these divisions is for good article structure. You're making out that I made these big huge changes to the article. Most of the stuff I did was just a reorganization. You shouldn't cluster a table, which you must edit under your structure, and match templates together. Kingjeff (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're inserting article structure that is unnecessary because YOU think it looks good. If it's not broken don't fix it. Stick to the Bayern article and I'll take care of the Dortmund article. You're not the Bundesliga boss. Italia2006 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I do think it's broken. Kingjeff (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the Dortmund articles for three years running now. You have absolutely no respect for other users on this site. In those three years I haven't seen your name and all of a sudden you barge in and try to change everything? I think not. And I don't care if you think it's broken, because (1) it's not broken and (2) that is your opinion. Italia2006 (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you've work on Borussia Dortmund's season article three years running now doesn't mean it isn't broken. Kingjeff (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's broken? That must be why the format I use is used on almost every other season article on this site and yours is used on ONE. You are nothing more than a dictator sir, and an example of someone who perhaps has been on this site too long and who thinks they have tenure. Italia2006 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other editors that have disagreed with you. Kingjeff (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are extremely weak, as there have been other users who disagree with you. But you probably ignore those. And the only thing other users have disagreed with me on is the use of the Template. Italia2006 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I count 56 link to Borussia Dortmund, and so I think it could be considerate: WP:OVERLINK. Stigni (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that different from any other article? Go look and then reply. Italia2006 (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says "an article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links. Overlinking should be avoided, because it makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value." Also, I don't ignore other editors. Kingjeff (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just looking for reasons to change an article which does not need to be altered from its current form. And like I said above which you again ignored, check any other club football season article on this site and tell me what you find. Italia2006 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is what it actually says. why do we need 56 links to Borussia Dortmund article? I actually think your method on the article looks very messy in the Competitions section. Especially since you have an "Overall" subsection at the top and another one a the bottom. If I'm ignoring other users, how am I discussing stuff on your talk page? If I check these other articles, will I find you be domineering like you were on Bayern Munich's season article page and like you are being with Borussia Dortmund's season article page? Kingjeff (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That other overall section is one that YOU added. And mine is much neater than your 100 subsections for every little detail. Obviously the rest of the people on this site like the format I use better because aside from all your Bundesliga articles everything else uses the format on this page. Italia2006 (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in EVERY club season there is a Overlink if for every match we link to the club page. I'm here to give you a third opinion but if you need other opinion why you don't open a topic on project talk page or a official dispute resolution. Stigni (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one reason why your way is flawed. You insist on not using the Champions League group template. The template has already been updated whereas your table has not. That is one thing that would have been updated without any editor who edits the 2012–13 Borussia Dortmund season having to do an edit. Using the template also means that there is less likely that there will be an edit conflict when editing. Kingjeff (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, these articles were moved based on a RM discussion [[1]]. Personally I don't care what type of dash there is in the title but do note that my brain spun out of shape moving about a 100 such articles. I suggest that you don't move them without getting some sort of consensus. --regentspark (comment) 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea a simple dash was such a big deal, but what I moved it to is the general standard I think for when there's a hyphen in war titles. Italia2006 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things that are a big deal out here are mind boggling :) If I understand the logic correctly, when the full name of the two parties (e.g., Mexican American war), then an emdash is used. However, when a shorter prefix form (Anglo) is used, then a hyphen is used. That's why there is a hyphen in Anglo-Maratha. --regentspark (comment) 14:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well alrighty then, I'm glad that was cleared up. You learn something new everyday. Italia2006 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2012–13 Atlético Madrid season may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know your view about the necessity of assists tables in league articles here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Assists_in_season_article. --BoguSlav 15:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group B standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kingjeff (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why leave the fatuous and unhistorical Dominion flags on the battle pages you've been amending? What we need is a template which takes the reader to a British Empire page treating the UK and the rest of the entity as the same thing, with varying geography but all subject to Whitehall. What we get now are vanity icons as if Canada et al. were sovereign states, not that I'm bitter mind.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused by this statement. Leave it as it is. Italia2006 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA, AL from Portugal here,

please, the club name here at WP has been changed to INTER MILAN (it used to be F.C. INTERNAZIONALE MILANO), that's how he should go now. Please let's reach a compromise.

Happy weekend - --AL (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article NAME is Inter Milan. We use Internazionale as the visible link. A compromise has been reached, you're ignoring it. The article name for Real Madrid is Real Madrid C.F., but we don't use that for the visible hyperlink do we? No, we use Real Madrid.

• Is there really a consensus? I mean, an overall consensus in WP, not a consensus between Inter fans here on WP? If there is i did not know about it, sorry and keep up the good work. --AL (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good my friend, no harm done at all. There is actually, across all articles involving Inter. In fact the change of the article name itself was very controversial because no one in Italy calls it Inter Milan. But you as well lad keep up the good work, and thank you for your understanding! Cheers Italia2006 (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this message, sent by an administrator to my talkpage as a followup (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Always_Learning#Internazionale - and i did not ask him to OK, he was "stalking" my page), you see i was right in the first place. Can i change it back? If not, that's OK. --AL (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comments? Fair enough. --AL (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me lad I've been away for a while. I think we should continue to use Internazionale as the visible link because EVERY Inter player's article uses it, past and present. Cheers Italia2006 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely true, at least as far as oldies go, and you heard the administrator, but that's OK, i won't edit war. --AL (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tottenham Hotspur F.C., but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season 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:

• {|class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA, AL "here",

here on English WP, we use INTER MILAN, not INTERNAZIONALE. But i give up, it's a lost battle, you told me last month it was a consensus and it is not, an administrator told me we use INTER MILAN here.

I repeat i give up, i want peace and not edit wars. Do as you want, happy day and weekend --AL (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus means something that's been a staple for years. And English is my first language, so I don't see the purpose of capitalizing "Italia" as if to demean me. It's Internazionale. The administrators don't do the editing. Italia2006 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What?! Great misunderstanding my friend, i did not call you Italia in capitals to belittle you, i called you Italia(2006) because it's your username, as A(lways)L(earning) is mine and i also wrote it with capitals. You have accused me wrongfully, please check thousands of other messages i sent to other users where i write their names in capitals (examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicat49#Vali_Gasimov, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Struway2#Walter_Pandiani, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daemonic_Kangaroo#Toni_Jim.C3.A9nez and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mattythewhite#Iago_Aspas - additionally, please check this message i sent to a fellow user where i "abuse" in the use of capitals to emphasize a point, not shouting or anything, the other guy did not take any offense because none was meant, as i did not mean to offend you either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MYS77#Categorias).

About the administrator bit, i referred to him because they are supposed to be above all reasonable doubt. And you're wrong again with all due respect, administrators are also users, so they can (and do) edit articles.

Happy Saturday --AL (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm sorry my friend. My mistake, people are so inclined to bash those they think cannot speak English. I wasn't sure to be honest about the admins part, but it's one of those things that gets silently acknowledged in the sense that it's always been used. All the Inter season articles, all the articles with Inter in it, documenting European competitions such as the CL, use the visible link of "Internazionale". That's why I seem so obsessed with it in that regard. Anyhow, you have a good weekend as well, enjoy the football. Italia2006 (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The team is known - on English Wikipedia at least - as Inter Milan and so that is the name that should be used. GiantSnowman 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my friend? I was not making up, what's your reply to this please? --AL (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the visible link should be 'Inter Milan' because the WP:COMMONNAME of the club is 'Inter Milan', hence why the article is located there. Do I agree with it? No, but that's the result of the community consensus, and we need to abide by that. Jut because some/lots of articles link to 'Internazionale' or whatever is 100% wholly, completely irrelevant. There's a reason we have redirects... GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see that you reverted my move of the article with no explanation. I'm happy to leave it there for now to see how things pan out in the British media and have added a comment to that effect on the article's talk page. Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that mate, I meant to put that, from my knowledge of Italian football, all three parts of his name are usually used when discussing him, which is why I reverted it. If you see developments to the contrary, by all means change it back to your version. Italia2006 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, even though not in my page. I apologize for the "I give up, top class these two guys!" sentence, but i was feeling very frustrated for not getting a reply, sorry for any inconvenience. I also feel it's worth noting i only started summarily reverting you after the administrator told me (and you) INTER MILAN was the name we should go by in this particular Wikipedia. I am going to start a WP:FOOTY discussion just to get many more inputs.

On a related note, you seem to have summarily removed my last message to you, thus indicating some very negative feeling towards me. Rather than that "top class these two guys" comment for which i have already apologized, is there anything else you feel i should apologize for? I will immediately do so if i see you have a point, no problem, i hate it when misunderstandings end like this, with people ceasing all communications with me even though i apologize sincerely (i'm only human, and in no way the boss of WP).

Cheers --AL (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the discussion, please drop a few lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#INTERNAZIONALE_vs._INTER_MILAN).

Few opinions but that's not my fault. Those (few) opinions, however, seem to "illustrate" that it's OK to write INTERNAZIONALE even though the article has another name. I will abide by from now on and write INTERNAZIONALE as well, a Portuguese promise. Kind regards, sorry for the trouble i put you through and happy work --AL (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All is well my friend, no worries. Italia2006 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I edit the Real Madrid season page, and a current large-scale discussion regarding the deletion of the assists section is undergoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Assists. Can you please comment on that page? Thanks.

Hi.

Just wanted to know why you keep removing the template inserted for these tables. Me and another user add these tables because they are the same as in the original articles that these sections refer to and the also look better with the borders. Please discuss this instead of reverting and come up with a good argument to use your table or your edits will be considered as disruptive.

Related articles:

• 2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season
• 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season
• 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season

As I said please discuss this on one of the talkpages (I will open discussion on one of them shortly) or your reverts will be considered disruptive. QED237 (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now opened discussion at Man City talkpage here Talk:2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season#CL group stage, standings table QED237 (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've already gone over the fact that what "looks good" is a matter of opinion. You countered with a question: what was my excuse for using the other table? This: your tables, first of all, are not templates. Second of all, the borders if anything make it look more bulky than necessary and really aren't necessary at all. The borders only matter at the end of the group stage, when the standings become permanent. The tables I installed in the first place (which you gentlemen removed) have been used for every season including last season's Champions League club season articles. I don't understand the obsession with having the exact same table as the 2013–14 UEFA Champions League article proper. Italia2006 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA06, AL "here",

can we please reach a compromise in this player's article? Earlier into this year we had a bit of a "wiki-misunderstanding" on the name we should use on INTER MILAN players and, even though i don't agree, i have complied, and use INTERNAZIONALE nowadays.

Could you do the same for me in this case? It's just a case of box compression, in there we don't need the "da" or the "do" or the "de", and full name appears in storyline anyway.

Attentively --AL (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Happy editing my friend. Italia2006 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. --AL (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem with using nobars? Lots of pages use it and it is much more aesthetic. I can't find anything on the official pages that says they are not allowed. Cheers. VanguardScot 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The aesthetic argument is highly arguable; for instance to me, nobars makes it look like a jumbled mass of colors (or simply green in Rangers' case) with numbers mixed in. As for it being used on many other articles, that is false. I edit dozens of football season articles across 8-9 different leagues, and none of them use nobars. In the interest of cross-project consistency I ask that you remove them. Italia2006 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are used in all the Heart of Midlothian F.C. and Rangers F.C. articles that I edit, and have been used in both cases since before I joined Wikipedia. If you have a problem with them take it up at WP:FOOTY, I will happily remove them if there is a consensus at the project, that they should never be used. Cheers, VanguardScot 23:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after further investigation, the majority of Scottish club articles that use that template, use the 'nobars=1' parameter. So this actually goes further than I thought, these are all pages edited by experienced members of WP:FOOTY and WP:FOOTY Scotland task force, so I see no reason why they should be removed, but by all means bring it up at the project. Cheers, VanguardScot 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about only getting back to you now. By all means if this is something used in all the Scottish football articles then continue using nobars. I was unaware that nobars was commonplace. My biggest issue personally is consistency, so if this is something which is consistent across the Scottish football season articles then by all means continue. Happy editing and cheers as well. Italia2006 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you sourcing these changes to the club trigrams in UEFA club competition articles from? – PeeJay 03:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

uefa.com, the source that matters. What do you take issue with? Italia2006 (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, I just noticed you were making a fair few changes. I can't be bothered to go check them all, but as long as we're being consistent throughout the encyclopaedia, that's fine. – PeeJay 21:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the layout you are removing is encouraged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics, which is the community-decided player MoS. Your argument appears to be based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; but just because a number of articles adhere to a certain standard doesn't mean they are correct to do so. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the need to list La Liga 6 times in a row. This is why I continually lose faith in this site, because people agree to the most outrageous formats ever. Why on earth does La Liga have to be listed continuously? That's ridiculous. I've also never seen the format that you reverted to before, so consensus, hardly. Italia2006 (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the need to repeat the division name in each row is due to an accessibility issue. The correct way to move forward with this would be to initiate a discussion at WP:FOOTY to try and form consensus, rather than attempting to enforce a change on a few articles. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I most definitely will, because I consider the format under consideration to be both messy and unnecessary. Italia2006 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. As I understand it, the rules of the FA Cup (see here) state that the round before the Final (with a capital F) is referred to as the Semi-Finals (both S and F capitalised). I assume the issue here is a stylistic one; do we go along with the "official" terminology or attempt to correct a perceived grammatical error? – PeeJay 18:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm assuming (which might not be the correct thing to do) that because the standard of stylisation on Wikipedia is for the second and following words to not be capitalised that this would be correct form. An example of this is that on season articles for clubs participating in the Champions League my old header for the group stage would be "Group Stage", but I was told that the correct version was "Group stage". In short, I went by Wikipedia's style over the FA's usage and terminology, but I'm open to consensus. Italia2006 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITALIA, AL "here",

indeed, my summary was as confusing as they get! What i meant is you either pipe all the clubs in storyline or none, not just some. Sorry for any inconvenience, i have the utmost respect for your work.

Happy writings --AL (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The apologies are mine. The relative of mine who wrote that was extremely rude. And I understand completely, I meant no offense by my edits (which were indeed mine). Happy editing to you as well! Italia2006 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what happens when you drink one beer too many (meaning ME, was partying a bit tonight after my edits in Postiga and others), i did not read your message thoroughly, hence missed the bit about someone else editing with your account. Still, offer my apologies to your relative, he would not have reacted like he did if my summary was 100% correct, which it was not (i mean it was not insulting, but it was quite confusing and open to interpretation). Best regards --AL (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that all football players are listed by their FIFA nationality and that is the national team they last played for. Diego Costa did last play for brazil and is therefore considered brazilian which is also the case at his article Diego Costa. It has been mentioned shortly on his talkpage. Please do not change nationality to Spain. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a question. Lionel Messi got Spanish citizenship 2005 after he lived there 5 years. Would you say he is spanish or argentinian? QED237 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Costa chose to play for Spain and was called up to play but was injured. The La Liga season page says he's Spanish, so someone has to make up their mind. And your Lionel Messi example is irrelevant. Messi has had Spanish citizenship but has actually played for Argentina and never said he wanted to play for Spain or asked for a call-up from them. Listen, it doesn't matter to me, I was under the impression the correct flag icon was Spain because on several occasions when I had changed it back to Brazil I was rebuked and my edit reverted. Maybe this is a matter for debate to achieve a consensus, unless the consensus is already to use the Brazilian flag still. Italia2006 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have been told there is a consensus to always use the national team that the player last played for. QED237 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About your run-in with User:Gringoladomenega, the following opinions: 1 - i agree with you in the Diego Ribas da Cunha bit, his footballing name is "Diego" not "Diego Ribas" (if i understood correctly what you tell me he's doing there); 2 - i don't agree with you in the Diego Costa situation, his intro has to read "...is a BRAZILIAN footballer..." or "...is a footballer...", it will only read "...is a Spanish footballer..." when he makes (if) debut for Spain OK? And we should not ever write "...is a Brazilian-Spanish footballer...", intros must be kept simple, and the nationality of the player should be that of last country represented.

I will say the exact same thing in Gringo's page. Cheers --AL (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Italia2006,
Please dont remove the middle names in the squad. The reason for this is that the source includes the middle names of some players that is why it should be included. Also the same reason why Kaka is considered as a forward (though he is a an attacking midfielder). Thanks! RRD13 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not the main editor for the article. I think you need to stop insisting on having club season articles done by your way only. Especially since pre–season for Austrian clubs started last June and you only made your first edits a few days ago and also the fact that Wikipedia is based on consensus building. The only need right now for the article is a few more sources for the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know what I'm talking about. This guy didn't use line breaks for anything. And btw, I go by the consensus. You don't. But that's not the issue here. And I didn't leave the note on your talk page did I? Italia2006 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is to say is that (A) I'm not sure why it was you rather than the gentleman whose page I posted on that is replying to my post; (B) the problem I had has nothing to do with the organization of the page, but rather that he doesn't link to the player's pages in the infoboxes and doesn't use linebreaks, and lists goals and cards as two separate blocks when they should be listed strictly by match chronology. And lastly, (C) you keep referring to my supposed refusal to adhere to a consensus. I go by the consensus, such as using footballbox collapsible, "Competitions" instead of "Fixtures and Results and Matches and Games" or whatever heading you use. I invite you to take a look at the rest of the articles for the biggest clubs in other leagues:

Spain:
2013–14 Real Madrid C.F. season
2013–14 FC Barcelona season
2013–14 Atlético Madrid season

Italy:
2013–14 Juventus F.C. season
2013–14 A.S. Roma season
2013–14 ACF Fiorentina season
2013–14 A.C. Milan season
2013–14 S.S.C. Napoli season
2013–14 F.C. Internazionale Milano season

France:
2013–14 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season
2013–14 AS Monaco FC season
2013–14 Lille OSC season

England:
2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season
2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season
2013–14 Manchester City F.C. season
2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season

Tell me my friend, what do you notice? Who's going by the consensus, me or you? Italia2006 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am replied to you because he came to me with your comment. I have actually gone by consensus before. I actually went by consensus in this season's Bayern Munich season article. So, he used commas. I wouldn't say that it is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with what other articles use. I don't use a "competition" and not likely to ever use it. Out of all those articles that you listed above, how many of them will get featured article status under their current format? Bayern Munich's current season article has a better chance of getting featured article status under it's current format than any of those articles that you mentioned. You stated to User:Werner100359 "Please stop editing this article or at least ask for help." You have a lot of nerve to tell another user to stop editing and you in noway helped him improve the way he edits. Kingjeff (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're hopeless lad... it's okay to use commas.. You've a lot of nerve to insist on your ridiculous format. Also, no season article has ever gotten featured article status, and having a million subsections won't help yours much. Italia2006 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want to do. This time, you not using the obvious and hugely widespread system doesn't bother me. The idea that you can't accept the obvious faults in an article is what bothers me. Commas are NOT ok, no matter what you try to tell yourself. That's just poor coding. I'll never understand why you insist on illogical things, but in all honesty I don't care. Italia2006 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't faults just because you say so. What makes my format rediculous? I personally don't want to go through a million things in a subsection if it's avoidable. It's one thing to say commas were wrong, but you told another editor to stop editing. This is even more wrong. The 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season article also uses commas, so there is more than one editor that uses commas. Kingjeff (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm talking about. The Manchester United article uses commas because it doesn't use Footballbox collapsible. The reason I haven't argued with that editor is because that format for Manchester United's season articles goes back decades. The Bayern Munich articles followed the same format until last year you popped up out of nowhere, destroying my Schalke 04 article in the process. Your format is insulting to the rest of the editors on this site who are striving to establish consistency across a project, and you're the only one resisting. Btw, the proper format doesn't go through a million things in a subsection. It's actually completely straightforward and to the point. You keep grasping at straws and for what? Why are you so attached to an archaic system? I honestly don't understand it. And you can't say its because you've used it for years, because the fact of the matter is you haven't. You even changed other articles around to match your format. Sir, if anyone on this site has nerve, that person is you. Italia2006 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have not understand the whole argument here and I have probably missed part of the discussion, but I would have to agree with Italia2006 as it seems. An article should not look like 2013–14 FC Schalke 04 season, I was actually thinking about a complete overhauling of that page to make it look like the other regular season article. QED237 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Footballbox collapsible template is irrelevant. You don't like it because he isn't doing it your way. If you feel that he is doing it incorrectly, then show him how to do it correctly. Kingjeff (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You literally cannot be reasoned with. And the footballbox collapsible template is COMPLETELY relevant. Accept that you're wrong and move on, Jesus. Other users agree with me. Just stop already. Italia2006 (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree you should not say to others the should stop edit, but footballbox collabsble are relevant no doubt, just give up kingjeff and stop making the pages jsut how you want them. QED237 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing. If the ENTIRETY of the rest of the Wikipedia football editing community uses footballbox collapsible, then it's not "my way" is it? Italia2006 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No one cares what you like or don't like. Your articles will be gradually converted to the proper model. Honestly, stop." Consensus means that everyone's opinion counts. What is proper model? Users who edit Manchester United club season articles might disagree with you on what "proper model" model is. Kingjeff (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Democracy. The proper model is what the majority of users agree on. I am not trying to reason with you anymore, because you can't be reasoned with. Italia2006 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit of a talk page stalker on User talk:CYl7EPTEMA777, due to me recently interacting with them, and noticed that you had asked User:CYl7EPTEMA777 to revert the move they had made that resulted in Template:Andromeda Galaxy moving to Template:Andromeda galaxy. Unfortunately, this editor has been blocked for disruptive editing and other reasons. However, I went ahead and posted on your request to revert the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Hopefully this resolves the issue, provided an administrator agrees with reverting the move. Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you very much! Much obliged, and, interestingly, "Thank you for stalking!" Italia2006 (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And by the way, I was taking a look at the edit histories of Template:Andromeda galaxy and Template:Andromeda Galaxy; turns out that IMMEDIATELY after CYl7EPTEMA777 performed the move from Template:Andromeda galaxy to Template:Andromeda Galaxy [2], the same editor performed a cut-and-paste move to bring the contents BACK to Template:Andromeda galaxy [3]. (The difference in time is not even a minute). So, seems like there were two copies of this template until Template:Andromeda Galaxy was turned into a redirect in good faith by another editor [4]. Talk about a mess! In fact, I had to move the "revert" to a more appropriate section on WP:RM/TR because of this mess. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your tidy-up and wondered if you would nominate a Great War infobox which is the most accurate so that I could copy from it? When I go round completing pages which are short of B1 and B2, I'm apt to overlook the box or only add items that I'm sure about.Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes certainly I will. Italia2006 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your bold move of the American Expeditionary Forces article as it seems the move was undiscused and an objection has been raised on the talk page, so per WP:BRD please join the discussion there to seek consensus. Vsmith (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold? A move based on fact is bold? I think you need to check your sources. It was never American Expeditionary Forces. Just Force. Italia2006 (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Atlético Madrid/1

Atlético Madrid, an article which you may be interested in, is currently under a Good Article Review. You may want to leave a comment on the link provided. Thank you. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ITA, AL "here",

i tried to present my arguments: we read the storyline and the infobox and we know he played all those years for Deportivo de La Coruña, so when we reach the chart below "Deportivo" suffices 100% for ANY reader (not just those familiar with football). You reverted me fair enough, can't be bothered all that much anymore and, after 12 JULY 2014, can't be bothered at all, will leave WP for good.

Happy editing --AL (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well hold on there AL. I apologize if my revert offended you, that was not my intent. My only concern is that I'm striving for consistency across as many articles as possible. Believe me, I've checked dozens of other Deportivo players' articles and they all use Deportivo La Coruña. That's my only concern. Also, why are you leaving? Italia2006 (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense there man (too strong a word, in this case i mean!). I know, consistency is good, but that is what i was trying to get accross, we say "Deportivo LC" in box, "Deportivo LC" in storyline, if we say "Deportivo" only in the stats chart would people be confused? I know i would not, even if i knew NOTHING about football and read article for the first time!

Your question: am leaving because i have been here for eight years now, and am not having fun anymore, am doing this almost like a job. Am sick and tired of the lousy vandals destroying all of our hard work, and plus can't seem to follow most of the guidelines.

Cheers --AL (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is no need to change the links, as per [guidelines for redirects] it has few if any benefits but can have some drawbacks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Italia2006 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Raheem Sterling. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand lad. Italia2006 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understand what? And what's with the 'lad'? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between what the guidelines postulate and what is the generally accepted form of style. You don't need three "Premier Leagues" in a row. It's redundant an