Pal

-- July 1, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

= Football links =

Hi,

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

- comprehensive list of football articles on Wikipedia

- place to discuss football articles

- good page for editors who are interested in football

15:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

= Shorts patterns =

You would indeed need to change every page that uses the template, which is quite a few last time I checked. I m not sure it s worth it, as as far as I m aware, no club has notable patterning on their shorts (usually just piping around the edges), which I wouldn t consider part of the general description of the kit. Although if you know of a club that has halved, striped or hooped shorts, we might have to do it. 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC) : Are those the correct edits to add the possibility of modifying the shorts to incorporate patterns ::Yes. 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

=Jon Papel(b)on=

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

= Category Edits =

Why are you removing the category link to English football clubs from club pages It is entirely relevant for club pages to link there. - 22:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC) : For the same reason I wouldn t put 22:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC) :: Which is why you wouldn t put 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ::: Which is why I wouldn t put 23:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

=Blackburn Rovers=

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

=Category edits=

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

You say why isn t it suggested that Microsoft Office should only be in a cat. called Category:Microsoft Office since that category exists Likewise, it isn t suggested that the Michael Jackson article should only appear in Category:Michael Jackson - well, that s not the part of categorisation I was arguing about - although it also says An article will often be in several categories. (i.e. it can still be in >1 categories). My point was about the subsequent rule An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory , which you transgress with your categorisation. I take your point about someone wanting to see lists of other English clubs from a particular club, though. It s a tough call, but I believe the rules are right - the categories are not navigation aids, but categorization! 16:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My point in bringing in the Michael Jackson and Microsoft Office examples was to illustrate that if the an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory takes precidence, then every single article on Wikipedia should only be in its own category (in which case they d never be in more than one category). - Well, no, that s specious logic. Think about it a bit - a car could be listed under both vehicles and consumer products. Or more simply, a sandwich could be under food and items named after a person. None of these are subcategories of each other. To make it clear - I m NOT suggesting that all articles need to belong to one category and one category only - just that they belong to the best categories (plural).

Also, the rule you mention was arbitrarily inserted into the Wikipedia:Categorization page by a user in June. Prior to that there was an exception that allowed categories to be in both categories and subcategories. If you observe the discussion page you ll see that there s still no consensus on the subject. Personally, I d argue that this rule seems to contradict the spirit of the Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article guideline. - Well, go argue it on the discussion page of the article then! Arbitrarily inserted It seems to have been accepted since that edit in June, at least as it stands - if you so strongly disagree, go do something about it. I m working with rules that I find now and agree with. 08:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rules, guidelines, whatever... I m actually not interested in doing anything further - I happened to change two articles I came across while categorising uncategorised categories (if you get my drift) and changed them according to the categorisation page. Hence, I haven t bothered to revert them back again - I don t care that much! But its nice to know that your argument changed from This is the proper use of categories to well, it s what a bunch of other people have done and you at least understand the logic by which I made my changes. 14:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

= MLB infoboxes =

Hello, I am nearing completion of the infoboxes for each MLB team and I wanted to run it by a few individuals before I ran it by the project and published them. Check out a finished one . Please focus on the info box and not the rest of the page. Here are some points I wanted some feedback on: *was not sure about how to handle notes about championships and retired numbers so I stuck the notes on the template *I limited the infobox to MAJOR LEAGUE info only, no Western League and no other minor league info *stuck Jackie Robinson onto template rather than on each team Any feedback, especially constructive, is much appreciated, have a good one!-- 22:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:Regarding listing the club s current owners, since the infobox lists the history of the information, I am afraid the infobox could become rather lengthy if we start listing current items; I am afraid people will start listing current TV stations, current owner, current payroll (just look at the mess on the BoSox page). Also, managers and owners will have their own page listed on the infobox under categories (I am working on a template for those pages, too, BTW). We could, however, list the current owners in the current roster section maybe(). What do you think-- 06:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::Hello, I was screwing around with the MLB table on your sandbox, and I could not get it to work like I was wanting it to. But I did figure out what to do instead if you want it to fit nicely. What you want to do is, for the NL, have the table be 3 rows by 3 columns; row 1 is colspace= 3 and says Nat l League , row 2 is 3 columns for East/Cent/West, row 3 is 3 blank columns. Inside the 3 blank columns, you insert another table listing the teams in that division; you make the 3 tables the same height in pixels and just set the cell heights evenly using percentages. I do not have a saved version trying it like that so I do not have an example. I have some other things to work on, but if you cannot figure it out, I can tinker with it later. If you ask me, you might as well put the table on the MLB page now because it is beter than what is there now, but that is your call. Have a good one!-- 01:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)