This is an archive of past discussions with User:Robby.is.on. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It is not forbidden and sport positions are not a situation where its use is unclear. You are taking MOS:SLASH to apply to all situations, which is not how it is written. Rikster2 (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Rikster2: "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash" is unambiguous to me. As far as I can tell most athlete's infoboxes use commas to list positions. So far you have only repeated why we could use the slash, claiming it is not unclear. It would be constructive to state a reason why using a slash would actually be preferable over a comma. My impression is that your insistence on using a slash is based in some personal aesthetics or habits, rather than a rational assessment. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Ozil honours
hello Robby I know all sources regarding ozi's assist record but can't attach the source as I don't know how to add source to an edit. If you tell how to attach source it will be very helpful Psrpen00 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Ah, yes, thanks. Oh I know, I've seen this alert elsewhere. Thanks for the suggestion, right now it might be overkill as I usually don't edit very contentious topics. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey mate, just saw your tweaks. Thank you! I just published the finished product to the mainspace. I'd be glad if you could have a look and do any copyediting and upgrades. --SuperJew (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Yes I am aware of the MOS:CATORDER text. It does not ban alphabetization of categories. I am employing the alphabetizing of categories (with the exception of keeping the Living people cat at the top next to the individual's birth year), which is an extremely common convention and practically universal on, for example, NBA player pages (see Giannis Antetokounmpo). There is no problem to alphabetizing categories, and unless you organize the categories in another reasonable/sensible form, I don't understand why you would revert my edits to have them reflect a previously unorganized listing. Soulbust (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Soulbust. Thanks for reaching out. If editors of NBA player articles agree with alphabetisation, that's fine. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, we don't do it. If you look at a couple of footballer articles, you'll notice the pattern. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
You told me to "have a look around" when you reverted my categorization on Jules Koundé a second time. Maybe you should do the same. The most popular footballers (such as Lionel Messi and Neymar have a mostly alphabetized categorization. I do not know if the categories after the initial alphabetization are unalphabetized because they are recently added, but nevertheless they still instill some sort of organization beyond that). Again, after looking around, the alphabetized categories formatting is commonplace on NBA player articles (see Giannis above, see LeBron James, see Tim Duncan, see Michael Jordan); it is commonplace on NFL player articles (see Tom Brady, see Patrick Mahomes, see even retired and not really star player Ronnie Brown); it is commonplace on NHL players (see Wayne Gretzky, see Mario Lemieux). This alphabetization convention is commonplace across a variety of sports, with the only real exception coming with pairing the Living people cat at the top next to birth years. Soulbust (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe you should do the same. Of my 190,000 edits most have been on footballers. I have done my bit of looking around. Again, after looking around, the alphabetized categories formatting is commonplace on NBA player articles, it is commonplace on NFL player articles That's immaterial. I informed you of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football project consensus. Messi and Neymar are exceptions to the rule. If you want to alphabetise categories on footballer articles, you'll need to convince people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, if you wanted to just revert the edit I made to Koundé, with the impression that footballers have a different convention (which since/if that's the case, that's fine and I of course would defer to that convention), it doesn't explain why you reverted the alphabetization of categories I implemented on Alina Hartmann.
I looked at Paul Pogba. I don't understand why football doesn't utilize the Eponymous cat then birth year then living people cat, then full alphabetization formatting that every other sport (at least ones I checked) uses. I would suggest that maybe some sort of overhaul be done to make footballers consistent with athletes of other sports, but I figure this would be contentious because of MOS:CATORDER. So I only ask that you don't revert on non-footballer articles as you did with Hartmann, since it seems that after looking around football player articles are the only ones that follow a different convention. I'll make myself aware of conventions of players of sports I haven't checked right now if I edit them in the future.
Would like to note that I said maybe you should do the same just as a dry mutual suggestion. Didn't mean it to be taken in any sort of slight. I was aware of the amount of edits you have made, and I also don't have an insignificant number of edits on sports pages either. Again, best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Footballer Full Names
Instead of saying "full name is unsourced" for certain footballers, you should also add "only use full name if different from article title" as per infobox statement. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆15:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
That's for the "birth_name" parameter. It's not the same as "full_name". I think if we can show with a reference that the subject's full name isn't longer than the name in the article title, that's good. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Paul. Nice to hear from you. :-) Yes, I found Merwan Ifnaoui's career path intriguing and that got me interested in creating an article.
Thanks a lot for the offers! I don't have any immediate plans but I would certainly not rule out creating more articles for Red Star players. Red Star and Ajaccio are both clubs I like to follow on Wikipedia, especially the former. iPhone 6S I salute you for your sustainable use of phones. I also like to hold on to my phones as long as I can.
Hi Robby! Thanks for responding, nice to hear from you as well. Thanks for considering the offers! I might get on some of them soon if I find some time. As for the iPhone, it's mostly because I'm in France right now, I took this older phone of mine and bought a French SIM card so I could call here— I live in the US. Otherwise, I have a 2020 SE (not that new either). So I'm not gonna take too much credit, haha. The match was interesting, both teams fought well, I got to be really close to the players. However, I was a bit disappointed that the standing section fans were "on strike" (no singing, no drums, no flags) due to protesting against beIN Sports since the game is scheduled on a Monday. If you're interested, see Le Parisien's article. I was also disappointed that the main anti-beIN chant that resonated in the stadium was "beIN Sports c'est des pédés" (transl. beIN SPORTS are faggots.) I enjoyed the whole experience, but if I go again I will make sure it is during the week-end. A takeaway from the whole thing is that Red Star deserves its reputation as a popular football club. Do you also do this sometimes, go to football matches and take pictures to upload on Commons? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Otherwise, I have a 2020 SE (not that new either). Me too! ;-)
I got to be really close to the players. Oh. Yeah, I've found that being placed so close to the pitch really helps with appreciating the skill and speed of professional footballers.
[[French people|on strike]] That's quite the MOS:EASTEREGG, heh, I see what you did there. I was also disappointed that the main anti-beIN chant that resonated in the stadium was "beIN Sports c'est des pédés" (transl. beIN SPORTS are faggots.) Oh dear, that's awful – and at a club that appears to be known for left-wing politics and social activism even. Having read the Parisien article (thanks!), I wouldn't blame fans for being annoyed with the terrible programming but homophobic chants are disappointing.
Do you also do this sometimes, go to football matches and take pictures to upload on Commons? No, I haven't ever. I was a season ticket holder at Werder Bremen from 2003 to 2022 but I was more occupied with singing, chanting and trying to make sense of what was happening than with documenting anything. In general I've never got into taking photos, really, but I'm thankful that people do. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
iPhone SE on top! Haha glad you liked the easter egg, I figured you'd see it. Yeah, this area does objectively have left-wing politics but it's not the same left-wing as say the type to go out and celebrate pride, you know? Also, homophobic chants are simply ingrained in football culture, unfortunately. Wow, season ticket holder at Werder Bremen for 19 years? Not bad! Of course I wouldn't be pre-occupied with that at my favorite team's games (PSG; by the way, I went to see the 6–0 win vs Montpellier last Friday— a rare occurrence for me). I suppose you've been to a game as a neutral before. But not everyone is interested in taking photos, so, no problems :-) Why did you give up your Werder Bremen tickets? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this area does objectively have left-wing politics but it's not the same left-wing as say the type to go out and celebrate pride, you know? Right. Left-wing politics at Red Star may be more about economic justice than about gender equality. homophobic chants are simply ingrained in football culture, unfortunately That's true, sadly.
The 6–0 win must have been a lot of fun. I once saw a 8–1 Bundesliga win over Arminia Bielefeld.
I suppose you've been to a game as a neutral before. I have, though I reckon five times at most…
Why did you give up your Werder Bremen tickets? It was a combination of factors: a) disillusionment with professional football – increasing commercialisation and the like, b) Werder Bremen's poor results, including relegation, c) shifting interests, d) increasing insight that I didn't want to tie my emotional state to events that I have no control over. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep, for Red Star, that's a good way to put it. I couldn't have asked for a better game than 6–0, to be honest. I think it's our joint-biggest league win in like five/six years as well. 8–1 is even nicer, though. Ok, I understand your reasoning for not buying season tickets anymore. I also have those moments where I see that I tie my emotional state to football games too much. Recently, I've started caring less when results are negative. I still watch every game :-). Alright, happy editing, Robby, and if you're able to help me on the Red Star player articles, then great! If not, no issues. Cheers, Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Could I perhaps share some quotes from this page with you...
"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly"
"Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another."
"If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
"try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."
"Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
In light of that, if you see "left-wing" or "right-wing" removed, please ask yourself if reverting it will escalate or de-escalate bias on Wikipedia. Dagelf (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The edit special:diff/1245337253 does not accomplish anything useful. All you did is arbitrarily capitalize one template name, re-arrange an arbitrarily ordered template parameter, and change the markup for dates in templates from the simplest and most concise machine-readable format to a longer format, when the {{use dmy dates}} template at the top is already auto-formatting everything to a more concise format below. Please exercise some basic discretion and refrain from making this kind of edit in the future. It creates distracting churn in edit histories and the effect is to make the template markup take up more space while having no effect on page output. –jacobolus(t)17:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Jacobolus: I disagree. Machine-readability is good but not sufficient. Dates should also be easily readable for the average person. While "2024-09-10" is ambiguous globally, "10 September 2024" is clearly understood. That is why I did and still do consider the change useful. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Robby.is.on You are not understanding. When the {{use dmy dates}} template with the cs1-dates parameter set is included at the top of the page, all of the dates inside citation templates will be standardized to the preferred output format. It literally makes no difference which date format is used for the markup of the template parameters at that point – readers will see the same output regardless. Beyond that, articles can, by local inertia or consensus, set their own preferred date style, and it is inappropriate to do drive-by script-assisted changes of those without discussion; see MOS:STYLEVAR. Doing the type of edit your did is not helpful, but only (mildly) disruptive. Please stop doing it. –jacobolus(t)18:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
When the {{use dmy dates}} template with the cs1-dates parameter set is included at the top of the page, all of the dates inside citation templates will be standardized to the preferred output format. That's not what I'm seeing, though. See the screenshot. Reference section at Radha Charan GuptaRobby.is.on (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The output appearance was identical before and after your change. The use dmy dates template explicitly specifies "sy" format, which means that the main date of a citation will be in shortened style (e.g., from your screengrab, 8 Jul 2010) and the access and archive dates will instead use the numerical ISO style (e.g. 2018-11-18). That is the deliberately intended date format on this page, and the MOS makes it clear that this style is an acceptable variant, which should not be changed if used consistently. –jacobolus(t)19:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The output appearance was identical before and after your change. I re-checked and found that you're right. I think the the cs1-dates parameter is a disservice to our readers but I'll leave it. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello. You may not have noticed my edit to Ray Ferris that undid your reverting the addition of the NIFG (Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats, nifootball.blogspot.com) website as "a random blog". The site was accepted as reliable some 15 years ago at this discussion and hasn't become unreliable in the meantime, as far as I'm aware. And it's listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links#Northern Ireland. Anyway, just a heads-up that I'm intending to restore the remaining reverted ones (gradually, real life permitting), check the heights listed and format them properly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
