User talk:Sb008

Hello, Sb008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! gidonb (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sb008, please see this link for our guidelines on flag usage. In the articles you've been editing, the use of cute flag icons is deemed disruptive--and, by the way, no one uses flags for provinces... Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hoi Sb--look at this one: flags for provinces. They're colorful, but I assume you're Dutch and so you know that we really don't talk much about provinces to begin with. Moreover, these clubs don't "represent" their provinces in the way that the guidelines suggest. In Eerste Divisie you had nationalities for coaches--same thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, No wonder your remark didn't ring a bell. I didn't add any of those flags, they were there long before I made my first edit. I'm indeed Dutch and I can tell you this much.
Where provinces are concerned: In general we support the team from our birth town or nearest town with a team. Next we support teams of our province. The rest comes last. On a national level, the province a team is from, is kinda relevant. Although none of the teams officially represent a province they do in the mind of many people. It goes back on sentiments over the centuries. A small sidestep. It is not uncommon that people outside the Netherlands call the country Holland. However Holland is only a region or 2 provinces (long ago a united single province) in the Netherlands. In my province (Limburg) calling someone a Hollander or someone from Holland is considered a big insult. In some areas there are quite strong provincial sentiments. Calling the Netherlands, Holland is like calling the USA, California, Texas or pick any state you like. So it is in some way relevant to have a list of teams by province. If you have such a list it seems valid to me to add the province flag. I know I care more bout my province flag and anthem than about the national flag and anthem. Of course one could say it's all nonsense, but then distinction by country could be called nonsense as well.
As far as the country flags in front of the people are concerned, they indicate the nationality of the person. Plenty of people who like to know where a manager or coach is from. If you look at the well known club football (the real football) teams, you will see a country flag in front of the players. hen they play for a club, they don't represent a country. Yet we would like to know their origin. So why should we use flags in any case where national sport is concerned? I would say because it's informative and many people like to know.
That being said. I feel the flags are informative and therefore relevant, but I don't care much about the flags being there or not, I didn't add them to start with.
Just never call me a Hollander, lol
--Sb008 (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Do Limburgers dance the limbo? Or was it a dream I once had. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kunnen we dit op éen talkpage houden? OK, I thought you had written those articles from scratch--sorry, if that wasn't the case. And yes, I know about nationalities, but MOS:FLAG doesn't support everyone's nationality being iconized everywhere--it is very distracting, for instance. That "province" story, meh--maybe it's the Limburgers who feel that strongly, but not everyone does. I have never known anyone who knew what our flag was--and provinces have anthems? That's news to me. Maybe your story applies to a very homogeneous province like Limburg--where I'm from we had a non-denominational soccer club, a Protestant soccer club, and a Catholic soccer club, and your faith determined where you went. At any rate, clubs don't represent a province, and those pages are cluttered enough already. And don't worry, I won't call you a Hollander, which for most people in "Holland" is a meaningless term anyway. (I've never been a "North-Hollander" either, though I'll lay some claim to being a West-Fries.) Drmies (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I have been reading the MOS:FLAG guidelines on flag usage carefully. Nothing in there indicates the use of the province flags was inappropriate. Contrary, the guidelines clearly state and I quote "flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". So in a table of teams by province, the province flags are very appropriate. You can discuss whether such a table should be present at all on a league page, however that's a different issue. But in regard to that issue, it's not very hard to find dozens of league pages with a similar kind of table accompanied by province flags. There are even tables which show the coat of arms of a city for a team.

You claim teams don't represent their province? Then why do so many teams have the province flag in their club logo? Just 2 examples, FC Barcelona and Bayern Muenchen. The team SC Heereveen even uses the province flag as their team outfit. Provincial sentiments are perhaps not that strong in Holland, but they are in other parts of the country, especially Friesland and Limburg. Perhaps the reason why you consider yourself to be more a West Frieslander than a North Hollander. And yes I know the difference between Friesland, West Friesland and even East Friesland (Germany).

The use of a country flag in front of a player, coach, manager etc. is even wider spread and the general habit.

If you feel the flags where used inappropriate you best make no plans for the next 2 years because you will be busy correcting an awful lot of pages.

All in all, I feel it would be more correct if you re-add what you deleted.

Last but not least, yes provinces do have flags and anthems (Lijst van volksliederen). The only province without an anthem is North Brabant. Even West Friesland has kind of an anthem Dut is 't land.

		The Running Man Barnstar
		This barnstar is bestowed upon you for your exceptional contributions to Dutch soccer! Specifically your invested work on the seasons of the Hoofdklasse drew my attention. Thank you for your efforts thus far! May many more quality edits follow!!! gidonb (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Another one for updating Template:Eerste Klasse. Much appreciated! gidonb (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{User investment}}

A tag has been placed on SV OSS '20 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. - MrX 🖋 13:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on VV GOES requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. - MrX 🖋 13:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that reliable sources are denoting '+' to indicate 3 or more goals? If a player scores more than 3 goals then he has automatically scored a hat-trick. Is there any evidence though that reliable sources are tracking hat-tricks, as opposed to them being listed in match scores?

I note you added a source for the position by round topic but is it possible to choose an actual round or do you have to pick a date to find the round number? Eldumpo (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your response was not especially civil; I don’t think 'ever considered consulting a dictionary' is helpful. I’ve never seen a '+' symbol added to the word hat-tricks to imply it’s including more than 3 goals as well. I checked a few more of this season's articles and if someone has scored 4 or more a note is added but I see no '+' in the sub-headings. I don’t see it as a big deal though, but it was you who decided to post a message as a result of my minor edit.

It would be better if the round could be directly picked from the source you added. You can get the info by searching dates, but it’s not as easy for the reader.

Anything can be deleted on Wikipedia, especially if it’s unsourced or if the source does not support the cite. Eldumpo (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:2017–18 Eredivisie table. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BangJan1999 17:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it because I have heard nothing from the other editor. Enigma^msg 21:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HSV De Zuidvogels is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSV De Zuidvogels until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. » Shadowowl | talk 09:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: En daar gaan we weer. Als jij tijd en puf hebt, graag. --Sb008 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb008, I'm going to refrain from !voting, only added my opinion, because I was made aware of the discussion by someone else. I have very limited time at present to expand the article but will see what I can do. In general it should be easy for you to expand it yourself, using the excellent sources that others added in the AfD. I will try to keep a closer look in the future. gidonb (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: Improved and referenced the article anyway. This AfD should be going nowhere. It runs against policy. We need to talk about simplifying and internationalizing our club names because some nominators do really sleazy WP:BEFOREs based on quasi-formalistic and archaic names, following the nl.wiki example. The names were a major factor also in the previous ill-researched AfDs and prodding. gidonb (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on SV Dalfsen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After deletion, I have moved the handball team to the root. gidonb (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may enjoy figuring this one out. The following coaches are said in different places (infoboxes, manager template) to have managed RBC:

• Rini Coolen 2008 to 2010
• Fuat Çapa 2009 to 2010

Unless comanaging as equals (unlikely), some of this should be incorrect. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Not that much to figure out.

• Rini Coolen was head coach until the end of season 2009/10 (July 4)
• His assistant coach Eric Hellemons took over ad interim till July 20
• A new head coach (Sándor Popovics) and an additional assistant coach (Peter van Vossen) were assigned.
• Sándor Popovics already left after 6 days, when he found out both assistant coaches were promised, by the club, they were in charge of the field training. This was unacceptable for Popovics, who felt he only got the job because he had the required coaching license and only was head coach on paper. The acting head coaches would be both assistant coaches but since neither of them had the required license, they weren't allowed to be the official head coach.
• After that both Eric Hellemons and Peter van Vossen took over ad interim till October 7. Apparently it's allowed for a coach without a license to be in charge ad interim. Surely there must be limitations but I got no idea what they are. I expect there to be a time limitation.
• On October 7, Fuat Çapa came. He negotiated the option, that he was allowed to leave during the winter break in case he got an better offer.
• He got that offer and on December 27 he left to Kasimpasa (Turkey)
• So Eric Hellemons and Peter van Vossen took over ad interim once again till January 31, 2011.
• After that Dean Gorré became head coach.

All in all, it should be: Fuat Çapa Oct. 2010 to Dec. 2010.

--Sb008 (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thank you for your excellent historical research! I had figured out the Popovics part (created an article on him) but not immediately how Capa related to Coolen as they incorrectly overlapped at one article. This makes sense. It also impacts the order of Popovics and Capa. Made changes accordingly. You may still want to add the ad interims at the template. Vriendelijke groet, gidonb (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Pages like this help Transfermarkt. Once you have that, googling based on "club + coach + year" let you find articles with more details. --Sb008 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it is common usage to list not more than two players. See international Handball, Basketball articles e.g. Kante4 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: If in history we all had kept doing what is common, we all would be still doing what they did in the stone age. Common is the biggest obstacle for progress and not a very valid argument. There is plenty of space for 3 names without the "layout/shape" of a match presentation being affected. If it would be 20 names, the layout would change. But this is clearly not the case. On the other hand, every top scorer in all matches has the same right to be mentioned and not to be hidden in "x players". If the layout/shape is not affected by the number of players, I see no reason to distinguish/discriminate between matches and top scorers. I'm open for valid arguments, but "common" doesn't qualify as such. Maybe as kid you sometimes used as argument "but all other kids". Don't think that convinced your parents. I know it didn't convince mine. --Sb008 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency and i am not the only editor to do this. We can start a brighter discussion and go by that, whatever the outcome would be. Kante4 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Consistency sounds good. I think it's better to be consistent within a page (all top scorers listed in the same way) than to be consistent between pages which are inconsistent by themselves (consistent in being inconsistent). Furthermore, if all jump from the Eiffel tower, you gonna jump too? Common and not the only one are the same non argument. I only would jump if there would be a valid reason to do so. --Sb008 (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted several times by several editors (@Dellux mkd and Sportsfan 1234:), so stop adding them back. It's consistent throughout all tournaments (basketball aswell), i know you don't like it but as i said, three editors disagree. Kante4 (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Even if 1000 editors disagree with me, it means nothing as long as none of them presents a logical argument for doing it their way. It's not a popularity vote. If Galileo had accepted the popularity vote just like that, the earth would still considered to be flat. You want to be consistent between tournaments? It's more important to be consistent within the page. Better to be consistently consistent than consistently (between pages) inconsistent (within the page). Give me 1 valid argument why if there's only 1 or 2 top scorers, they are mentioned by name and if there're more than 2 top scorers their names are all of a sudden irrelevant. A logical argument, so not habit, the majority or any other none argument. --Sb008 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is consistent throughout the page and also throughout the years (like here just one example). You came to this article and changed a lot stylewise and other stuff without discussion, not how it works. Can't change it to "your" style after it was different the years before. What happens if there are 5-6 top scorers? And still, if three editors disagree with you, you should not add it back before discussing it with all parties involed. (Not only because you were close to 3RR) Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4:

It's not consistent within the page. Sometimes top scorers are mentioned and sometimes they're not. Consistent is they're either always mentioned or they're never mentioned. See the dictionary: consistent.
Style is not consistent either, not within the page, and not between different pages. Just 1 example of each; 'align=left', 'align="left"' and 'style="text-align: left;"', and on the page WC Spain 2013 the module "sports_table" is not used.
None of the style changes I made changed the layout of the page. I removed deprecated tags. Guess you want to keep these tags till browsers no longer support them and the pages start to cause problems. I bet you don't even change the definitions used by your virus scanner neither. After all you prefer to keep things as they're and not to anticipate on new developments and progress.
I advise you to read about the Five pillars, specifically pillar 3 and 5. You find enough reasons there why I don't need to discuss removal of deprecated tags first. Doesn't have to do anything with being my style or not.
The only thing which can be considered as "my thing" is all top scorers to be mentioned. But then, that's not style but a disagreement about which content data should be presented.
Up till now, you nor anybody else, provided a logical argument for why if there're are more than 2 top scorers not to mention their name. Best you could do, 2 other editors think/do the same. Let me ask you, if all editors decide to jump from a skyscraper, are you gonna jump without any thinking as well or are you going to decide, based on logical arguments, whether you will jump or not.
If we would keep doing things out of habit or just because more people do it, we would be still living in the stone age.
I wonder why the layout of the current WC is so different from the layout of the WC in 1938? Shouldn't you be busy reverting all these layout changes and shape all as in 1938?
When you finished doing that, you can go change the high jump pages of the Olympics in 1908, 1992 and 2012. At all these Olympics the were 3 jumpers who won the bronze. By mistake the names of all these jumpers are mentioned. Of course this should never have happened. So best you go change it into ""three jumpers 1.88m", "three jumpers 2.34m" and "three jumpers 2.29m". Don't forget to mention there're are 2 more editors who agree on the "not more than 2 names policy". Luckily there weren't any Olympics with 5 bronze medalists. Imagine the total disgrace if they all had been mentioned by name.

Unarmed habits, especially of the majority, are the biggest obstacle for progress.

Time you start presenting your arguments. I'm not interested in how many do as you do. I want to know for which reason you do as you do.

Discussing you do based on arguments, not on what others do as well.

It's not the quantity but the quality and validity of arguments which matters. --Sb008 (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All that text for complete nonsense. You accuse me for things i have never said or done (just said that handball and basketball tournaments only add 2 scorers in the boxes as evident by other articles). The style change i did not care or challenge, nothing wrong with it. I never talked about anything other than the boxes with the results (of course all medalists should be listed), so not sure where you got that idea from... I leave this here now and move on, discussion is going nowhere sadly. ;) Got really no problem with you, just different opinions. Kante4 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kante4. It is common practice to list not more than two players (all previous EHF and IHF competitions). Why cant we be consistent. As i said before, what if there are 5 players same number of goals scored? We will list the whole squad? It's nonsense. Just accept the common practice and live with it, why are you arguing with many editors? We are all wrong and only you are right? Whats the point of your constant reverting the edits? Dellux mkd (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dellux mkd: Your question implies you are an unique person. Apparently you argue with people because you think your wrong. But I admit, I indeed argue because I think I'm right. However, I also know that contrary to what I think, I could be wrong. To make me realize I'm wrong, you will have to present valid arguments. So far, neither you nor Kante has done so.

Why can't we be consistent? The perfect question. I know you aren't consistent!!! A small analogy; the people in a street can choose to wear footwear on both feet (list all top scorers), only on the left foot (list only top scorers of team listed as home team), only on the right foot (list only top scorers of team listed as away team), or no footwear at all (list no top scorers). These are accurate and valid choices. According to you, these people are consistent in their footwear because in another street (another WC or EC) people have the exact same choices. Basically according to you footwear is consistent for all people. In this example there are only 2 choices (yes or no footwear on a foot). Let's expand this a bit. In the evening I can choose to watch tv, make love with my wife, go visit friends, go for a walk, solve a crossword, and a few 100's more options. You have the same choices, as has anybody else. Guess we are all consistent in our evening activity since we got the same choices. Consistent and variation do not match. A single tournament contains variety in regard to the top scorers. Just because in every tournament you got the same variety, it doesn't mean your consistent. You're consistent in being inconsistent. Consistent is; either list the names of all top scorers or always use a string like "x players y". If you do the same for every tournament, you're consistently consistent.

To answer your question about what if there're 5 players with the same number of goals. What is the problem if there're 5? What are the odds there're 5? What are the odds the whole squad scores the same number of goals? Why, in e.g. football, they don't have a problem listing all goal scorers even if a team scores more than 10 times? To answer your question more concrete, I say, we list all 5 because I see no reason at all not to. The template can handle any amount of players and the visible layout of a match is not affected. To do it different for 2 or 5 players requires a valid argument like e.g. as of "x" players the problem "y" is caused.. From a wiki code perspective there is none. From a layout perspective there is none.

So maybe you can give me an armed reason why 5 is a problem. I'm curious to hear your first real argument.

Also I like to hear from you why if there're only 1 or 2 top scorers they get the privilege of being mentioned by name and if there're more than 2 they're denied this privilege?

And maybe you can tell why you replace informative data by less informative data.

All in all, You accuse me of thinking I'm always right. Well, aren't we all? You claim to be consistent. A false claim, at best you consistently inconsistent. You want people to accept common practice. If we would think what the majority thinks, we would still think the earth is flat and if we only do things as the majority does, we still would do things as in the stone age. Common practice has to be challenged at any time because otherwise there will never be progress. And worst of all you don't present a single argument why what you do is correct. --Sb008 (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So much text off topic. You are making comparisons with football and here we are talking about handball. In football it is common practice to list all goalscorers because in football there are few goals and all goalscorers are listed. Here we are talking about handball and the common practice to list not more than two players in all previous handball articles. I see that you edit most of dutch sport competitions. Good for you. Now there is a World championship and suddenly you jump and you think that you can change the practice as you think is right. You see that many other editors disagree with you and you continue reverting edits without discussion with those who disagree with you. You think that you are 100% right and i think that i am 100% right. We will continue reverting edits and where will that lead? Credits to all goalscorers? Lets list all goalscorers. No need for that. There is a match report for more details.

Sometimes we just need to put our vanity aside and to act more sensible. This discussion went far beyond and is complete nonsense. I think that you need to sign up some forum when you can discuss about history, philosophy, logic's, psychology, etc. Here we are talking about a simple handball article, about listing goalscorers and with your discussion and arguments you went far beyond. You present completely pointless arguments and facts unrelated to the topic. I have nothing against you and your opinion. As you express your own opinion and attitude, i express mine. I am reverting the edits because i think that i am right, not because you think differently. I am leaving this conversation here and i have no intention to go further. Of course you have the right to think differently. Dellux mkd (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dellux mkd:

1. In football it's totally irrelevant how many goals are scored. Goals are listed player based. Just like top scorers in handball are listed player based. In football there may be less goals scored, however the number of matches where more than 2 players scored is relatively a lot higher than handball matches with more than 2 top scorers. So your first argument is flawed.
2. It is not common practice to list not more than two players. If you look at all WC, EC and Olympics handball articles, the majority has no top scorers at all. Another flawed argument.
3. If common practice would be an argument, top scorers shouldn't have been listed ever. After all to list them was, when introduced, a "violation" of the common practice not to list top scorers. Your argument becomes even more flawed. In your line of reasoning things never change, because every change isn't according to common practice. People like you keep us in the stone age. Why do you even use a computer? It was common practice to use paper and pen!
4. On the pages where top scorers are listed, we see several varieties. So which variety is the common practice?
5. No need to list top scores if there're more than two because there's a match report? Then why list any top scorers at all? After all there's a match report. Why even list punishments, referees, scores? After all there's a match report!!!
6. There're are many editors who disagree with me? Effectively I see only 2, you and Kante4. If you wish 3, another who never contributed anytging to the page. Where I'm from 2, or even 3, isn't considered many. But even if it were 50 or a million. The majority doesn't decide what's right. Otherwise the earh would still be flat. When you removed the statistics added by someone else there are probably many who agree with you as well? Why did you add colors for 3rd-4th place and the final? And why did you do so without discussing? Why do you violate your own policy not to make any changes to the so called "common practise"

I edit Dutch competitions and now I jump and think I'm right? Why do you mention this? You're trying to imply you got more rights, are more right, or got more authority because you been editing WC's articles longer? I played handball in the highest Dutch handball league and been a referee on the second highest level. Should I argue that gives me more rights, makes me more right, or gives more authority? Someone is not right or wrong based on what he/she did in the past or ever did. Someone is right based on the validity of the arguments presented. So someone who makes the first edit ever on Wikipedia could be completely right.

Furthermore, unlike you I don't think I'm 100% right. What I do think tho, based on all presented till now, I'm more right than you. But if someone presents good valid arguments I'm more than willing to adjust my opinion.

In one and the same message you even claim "without discussion with those who disagree with you" and "I think that you need to sign up some forum when you can discuss". So what is it? I don't discuss or I discuss too much?

Untill your last message you didn't present a single argument. All you managed to present was that you agree with someone else and it's common practise. In your last message you presented factuellement incorrect statements. You avoid answering questions. You act like the owner of the page, the only authority who decides what will and will mot be changed.

Present valid arguments or stop vandalizing

--Sb008 (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But 3x 2 minutes is a red card. Not sure why it is not shown... Kante4 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Technically it's not a red card. The red card is shown, but only to indicate "end of story". To list it as 3x 2min + red makes it look more severe than e.g. 2x 2min + red. In the 2nd case red would have been shown even without the prior 2x 2min. A "real" red card does not depend on previous 2min penalties. --Sb008 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there sometimes in the pdf report a RC shown and 3x2 Min for a player? There is no consistency i realized before. Kante4 (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: I can't exclude there're reports like that but I've never seen one. In the days I was a referee myself (2nd highest national level), indication of a red card on the form was used only for a direct red card. --Sb008 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3 and 4 from this tournament alone. I get what you are saying but i always saw/thought 3x2 min and RC. Kante4 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: It's indeed inconsistent, Seems DEN KSA is the only exception, so to make it consistent it's indeed better to add the red card for KSA. I don't read the web pages and reports on the official site, but use programs to scan them and generate the wiki data. Hence no red card for KSA. --Sb008 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article on Jonathan Okita lists him as being Belgian, not German! I've been looking for some sources and basically it seems he has double nationality, both Belgian and German. If you say he's primarily German, then please change the article and add references to prove that statement. Otherwise imho it's quite unclear and there's no reason to use one over the other, born in Germany yes, but also Belgian citizenship and played there since his youth... --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 16:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelotas:Lijkt mij dat de website van N.E.C. in deze de meest betrouwbare bron is. Verder, ik maak divisie pagina's niet handmatig, maar genereer deze op basis van dezelfde bron als e.g. de NOS gebruikt. Ook daar heeft hij de Duitse nationaliteit. Jij wilt zonodig iets veranderen, imho betekent dit dat jij dit zal moeten onderbouwen. --Sb008 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you make me do it, then he becomes a Belgian, referencing the same website as yours (https://www.nec-nijmegen.nl/teams/selectie/selectie-speler/jonathan-okita.htm) "De in Duitsland geboren Belg tekende in Nijmegen een contract voor 4 seizoenen. Bam, done, deal with it. --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelotas:Zelfde pagina: "Nationaliteit: DE". Ik zou zeggen, neem lekker contact op met N.E.C. Zolang hij bij hun Duitser blijft, blijft ie dat ook bij mij. Op NL-Wiki is ie zelfs "Frans-Duits". --Sb008 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree (like I said in the beginning). He's Belgian, German (as apparently also French), no real reason to choose one over the other, the NEC website calls him a German-born Belgian but puts a German flag. NOS has him listed German. Belgian media call him Belgian. I've done the necessary thing as you instructed me to on Jonathan Okita so I propose we stay consistent and call him Belgian until we have a clear reference that says otherwise. Makes sense no? --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelotas: On the 2018–19 Eerste Divisie page, just like on the Eerste divisie 2018/19 page, he will remain German until proven otherwise. --Sb008 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree... Wikipedia is about referencing and sources, not personal choice. Referring to another wiki is not a reference lol. --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 18:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelotas:

• N.E.C.: German
• NOS: German
• Soccerway: German
• Wordfootball.net: German/French
• transfermarkt.co.uk: German/Belgian

There's 1 common factor: German. So start respecting those references and stop bothering me until you can present solid proof. --Sb008 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally doing what I asked you in the first place, namely searching for refs :) (I don't care what you put as nationality, but just saying "He's German to me and you figure it out doesn't work".) By the way, here's another list of references. But it remains mixed imho:

• N.E.C.: German-born Belgian with German flag. <- let's be fair, this reference is ambiguous
• Gazet van Antwerpen: Belgian https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20170201_02706681/standard-leent-jonathan-okita-aan-union-uit
• KSV Roeselare: Belgian http://www.ksvroeselare.be/2016/08/welkom-jonathan-okita/

Anyway thanks for the refs. --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 19:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelotas: No you should read better, NOS is mentioned as reference for the Assist table. Soccerway and Worldfootball are mentioned on the players page. As far as the N.E.C. page is concerned, I told you to contact them so they can clarify matters and/or change the web page if they consider it needed. Finally, I don't need to show a reference for a players nationality. Otherwise there have to be 20 references (doubles ignored) for the top scorer and assist table on the page. We done now? --Sb008 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read on Jonathan Okita: "Jonathan Okita (born 5 October 1995) is a Belgian football player."... as I said in the first line of this discussion. I asked you to change that + reference. Guess that got misunderstood. --Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 21:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2017–18 Eredivisie results has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: In case of an admin I assume proper knowledge and not totally irresponsible proposals for deletion. --Sb008 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sb008, Not an admin. Never have been an admin. Perhaps you misread my userpage? I do want to WP:AGF but you have now accused me of being a bad admin in two different threads, when I'm not an admin, so please check your facts. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: My apologies, already noticed Frietjes has been messing with the main page. Like with the standings table there was a reference to the results table. The template should not be removed. The main page has been reverted to its original state. --Sb008 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sb008, we all make mistakes and I'm happy to forgive and move on, but you need to be MUCH more careful learn the meaning of WP:AGF. You threw around a number of completely unfounded accusations and still have refused to acknowledge the fact that you were just plain wrong. Please strike and revise your comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_13#Template:2017–18_Eredivisie_results. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Apparently my apology wasn't clear enough. It was an apology for being wrong.. --Sb008 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Eerste Divisie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think you understand that what you are essentially something that isn't really needed on the wiki as they can be easily placed in the seasonal section of that team. This talk has already happened before over here and as Lee Vilenski said in that discussion, it's a WP:FANCRUFT issue that covers all sports. You could also put that info under WP:NOTSTATS as well because that is what it is. Stats. HawkAussie (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: In general the most important table in football is the standings table. Here you have 3 web sites:

• NOS By far the most reliable site for Dutch football
• Soccerway probably in general the most referenced site for football
• Hollandse velden the most comprehensive site for Dutch football, all the way down to the lowest league.

All these sites represent "result by round" included with the standings table.

Furthermore we have the module Sports rbr table. This module is specifically designed to create tables with "position by round" or "result by round". You think that module appeared just like that for no reason? The module represents a consensus.

So we have major websites we consider it relevant info and a consensus based module.

And you think a mini debate creates a new consensus? In my opinion the last word in the debate says it all; "prejudice".

If "results by round" is WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:NOTSTATS, an opinion which I don't share, the same applies for the more widely used "positions by round". In that case the module Sports rbr table should be removed immediately.

Seems to me the proper discussion is whether to remove this module or not, and to make sure the right people are involved in the discussion.If the outcome is removal of the module, I'll be more than happy to remove "results by round" and "positions by round" myself from the eredivisie page.

Until then, I hope you understand it's appropriate to respect the current consensus and not to force your personal opinion. --Sb008 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, they only do the last five matches as a guideline to form not the full season like you are saying. Also I only bring this up as the positions by round has been in the past few seasons while results by round has only been brought in this season and did anyone thought of a conscious to have this. That answer is no, they have not said that this should be a feature now and going forward. HawkAussie (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said anywhere they do the full season. None of these sites show "positions by round". So that info is even less validated than "result by round". No one needed to say that this should be a feature now and going forward cause it already has been a feature before now. But if you mean the feature wasn't used yet until recently on this page, you're correct. Maybe your WP:WPF project should develop a blueprint for what info is supposed to be on a league page. Mandatory parts, optional parts, level of detail for each part and for different tiers etc etc. Even things like should deprecated tags be accepted on a page. I hope for you they will be or an awfull of what you created would be removed. Personally I consider a kit manufacturer far more WP:FANCRUFT than a "results by round". Anyway, I'm looking forward to the discussion you're going to start to have the module Sports rbr table removed. --Sb008 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing, that is already been complete under this so that project in some way is already complete. HawkAussie (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: I would define that as a very basic start which still needs a lot of work. Just looking at the infobox I would eventualy expect something like:

parameter	format/description	tier 1	tier 2	tier 3
competition	link to general page descring the league, e.g. Eredivisie	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
image	league logo	mandatory	optional	optional
season	9999–99, e.g. 2019–20	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
dates	d M Y – d M Y (startdate – enddate)	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
relegated	<br /> seperated list of links to teams which relegated	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
continentalcup1	link to EU cup, e.g. Champions League	mandatory	no	no
continentalcup1 qualifiers	<br /> seperated list of links to teams which qual for Cup above	mandatory	no	no
biggest home win	team1 result team2	mandatory	optional	no
matches	99, number of matches played	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
total goals	99, number of goals scored	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
league topscorer	<br /> seperated list of links to players	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
prevseason	link to prev season	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory
nextseason	lonk to next season	mandatory	mandatory	mandatory

I just put something very quickly together. If it was for real I would do it different, most likely 2 tables. Someething like, first table: "parameter - description - format - example", second table: "parameter - tier 1 - tier 2 - ... - tier X". I used the values: "mandatory - optional - no". Maybe there should be more possible values. And the values I put in the quick table above are not by definition correct, they only meant as an example. Probably a motivation for each parameter about e.g. why it's mandatary for tier 1 and not to be used for tier 3 or a short summary of the pro's and con's in the discussion which resulted in why mandatory or optional or not to be used, or a link to the page where it has been discussed. Anyway, it should not only be about how it's supposed to be but also why it's supposed to be like that. Always better when people can read why it is as it is than just saying it's like this. Just been brainstorming, so don't read anything as a dictate. --Sb008 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These stats are not within consensus. If you want these types of tables to be included on articles, you will need to gain a consensus. Regardless, this should be at WT:FOOTY, so I will move this thread.

I say this again, but it's not vandalism as I am following the template that is set on WP:FOOTY. If you want to bring it up, then bring up there as it's seems like you just using WP:OWN at this rate. HawkAussie (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grab a mirror instead of pretending you operate according to some kind of standard. Furthermore, why do we need almost identical info in two sections? --Sb008 (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm only trying to follow those guidelines that is set out. If you don't like it then WT:FOOTY is a good talk place for this type of discussion as it would be easier to get a majority for this discussion. You don't have to be snarky about one thing. HawkAussie (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

Look the vote was in favour of position by round being dropped from seasonal articles, so this does not mean you need to revert my edit due to the fact that it feels my own opinion. So why did you revert my edit when I was only following the vote that was on the WP:FOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie:

1. Obly 1 vote difference I don't really consider a clear descision. But if you do, adding my "yes" vote results in 11 against 11.
2. Furthermore, as I indicated in the discussion prior to the vote, "at least have the decency to inform all active editors of league pages that a discussion on that matter is taking place". It's obvious that in my opinion the same applies not only for a discussion but a vote as well. It also explains why I didn't vote at time of the vote.
3. Besides the people who voted "yes", there are several ppl who reverted removal of the tables. It's an assumption, but I think it's pretty fair to assume if those people had been informed about the vote, they would have voted "yes" as well.

All in all, adding my vote makes it a tie, and considering the reverts made by non voters, I would say the outcome is in favor of the tables to stay.

--Sb008 (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the results by round because isn't that overkill by virtual of WP:NOTSTATS. HawkAussie (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie:Why do we need to have the same discussion over and over?

As long as e.g.:

• Kit manufacturar and shirt sponsor appear on league season pages and not on club season pages.
• Monthly awards, which are only an advertizing tool, appear on league season pages.

are considered valid STATS, result by round tables are the last thing I worry about.

--Sb008 (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HawkAussie. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2019–20 Eredivisie without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: If you want to add the relegated/promoted text in the teams section, you remove the almost identical information from the previous section. I don't care where that info is, as long as it isn't both sections. Maybe you can spend your time more usefull by removing the deprecated tags fron the Netherlands national football team page. Also the reference to the kidnapping story is just one version. Cruijff and not Cruyff nade different statements about the events that took place. The regime has never been the most likely reason for him skipping '78. --Sb008 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only following something along the lines of this page and that has both of those in different pargraphs. Also it's only on the Dutch pages with that type of format no where else. Also if you are so worried about that, how about you do the Netherlands page if you are so worried. HawkAussie (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie:

1. The Dutch page about the Eredivisie doesn't contain deprecated tags or disputed info, so in that aspect I got nothing to worry.
2. The Premier League page is not the standard. The Eredivisie tables on top scorers hat-tricks and assists contain more info than the corresponding tables for the Premier league. Not only that, the Prenier league tables are full of deprecated tags. The objective of Wiki is to improve quality and not to lower good quality to poor quality just cause you consider poor the standard.
3. Glad you mention the Premier League anyway. According the standard (in your opnion), the hat-tricks, assists, clean sheets, discipline and awards section are not part of that standard. So if you're consistant you should go and remove that information from the Prenier league page. Furthermore, you love WP:FANCRUFT so much. Who, besides the fanatics, cares about the kit manufacturar and shirt sponsors? An average football lover doesn't, but I'm pretty sure the companies involved love the advertizing. With over 50 advertizing references the page seems to be more an advertizing billboard than a league page. I would define it as (WP:FANCRUFT)² (Hope you understand mathematical notations).

--Sb008 (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this chat has run it course. But I will say it one more time, if you want change then do it on the WP:FOOTY as we are not going far. Also with that last section, technically your page is also the same as they have a kit manufacturer and shirt sponsor so by your assumption, they need to go. HawkAussie (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on 2019–20 Eredivisie. Thank you. HawkAussie (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat it once more, one of the objectives of Wiki is to improve quality. Using a less informative table with deprecated tags as your personal standard which you expect to be used by others as well, does exactly the opposite. As far as the kit manufacturar and shirt sponsors is concerned, I indeed think that kind of info should be deleted on league pages because that info is totally irrelevant for a league. Info like that belongs on club/team pages. But, I know that others might have a different opinion there. So I don't start deleting info from pages without consulting others. You can't say the same, you continiously try to delete info, change table layouts, add information which is already on the page without consulting anyone. You do and expect others to jump for joy about a decline in qualty. Do it once and I can assume good faith, do it 10 times and it would be naiv to assume it's good faith. In my book that's vandalism. --Sb008 (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you are not doing itself. May I say that I'm only reverting it back to follow what most of the other pages follow with their statistics. Not like the style that you are trying to put into these articles. So technecially your removing my edits for vandalism when you are doing it me. That is not on. HawkAussie (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You trying to convince me or yourself? But I gotta say, interesting concept, undoing vandalism is vandalism too. --Sb008 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, mate : i reverted the wrong edit (was intending to revert the one from Jawszy but obviously got it wrong). Matilda Maniac (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb008! You may enjoy the articles I created for SC Emma, Janus van der Gijp, Wim van der Gaag, and EBOH. All part of Dordrecht football history. The article Terneuzense Boys was prodded and deprodded. Improvements are always welcome. Best, gidonb (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks not like 500 tbh. Do we have any (official) statement that the whole tournament was played without spectators? Would be good to add. Kante4 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Best I can find is this media release. It mentions "With the competition played without spectators, extra emphasis has been placed on generating unique digital content across the EHF’s social media accounts." I can't find an official announcement (yet). --Sb008 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me to be added to the lead. Kante4 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: Specificly for RUS v ESP. Text above the picture: "HERNING, DENMARK - DECEMBER 03: No spectators at the stands and in the foyers during the Women's EHF EURO 2020 match beween Russia and Spain in Jyske Bank Boxen on December 03, 2020 in Herning, Denmark. (Photo by Jan Christensen / FrontzoneSport via Getty Images)" --Sb008 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i would guess and use the logical ones (that are often used). If we want to be correct of what we know, we should just add the city, as everything else would be (yeah) gueses.... Kante4 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2008 European Women's Handball Championship qualification – Play-offs, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Please don't add maintenance templates using false arguments. Below the table is a Source reference and each imdividual match has a Report reference. --Sb008 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an external link under the table, which is should not should not be used as a reference. Please see WP:CS:EMBED and Wikipedia:REFSTART. --John B123 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Well, the new templates solve all. Next time put your templates within the first minute of page creation. I'm not going to waste more time on an encyclopedia where there're people who feel their purpose in life is to add templates and not grant people time to create a finished page. --Sb008 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First minute? --John B123 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Yup, you're way too slow. You should demotivate people right away. Btw, when was the last time you contributed by adding some "real" content. --Sb008 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2008 European Women's Handball Championship qualification requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by three different editors now. Please take it up at the relative discussion at WT:FOOTY. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What's happening with UEFA links attendance? Apparently, there seems to be a system error. (example) I noticed you added Croatia v Austria and France v Denmark attendance. Did the link work properly as usual?--Island92 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V2 version will work again in the process.--Island92 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: The links worked fine when I looked up the numbers because then I used the correct ref URL's. When I added the info to the page I used the 1 of the ref URL's already present on the page for copy/paste purposes. That way I only had to change the match ID. The URL I used as copy/paste URL was incorrect, hence all those I added became incorrect. See here. The ref URL contains |url=https://match.uefa.com/v2/matches/2034412/. It mentions "v2" instead of "v4". I corrected all v2's to v4's and the ref URL's are fine now. It is possible to add already now the ref URL's for all group matches as wikicode comment . I aleady did so for the match ITA v GER. In General the reference is <ref>{{cite web |url=https://match.uefa.com/v4/matches/<ID>/ |title=<name home team> vs. <name away team> |publisher=Union of European Football Associations |date=<match date> |access-date=<match date>}}</ref>. Just replace ID, name home team, name away team, and match date by the correct values. ID is the exact same value as in the report URL.

Last but not least, don't bother to ask me anything again after reverting the correct edits I just made. "v4" is correct and "v2" isn't. --Sb008 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always put v2 as user S.A. Julio suggested I should do it. At the moment v2 is not working, v4 is, hence I think it's a matter of time v2 will be available again in short notice.--Island92 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: If everybody else jumps from a skyscraper, will you jump too? The UEFA uses "v4" so I don't care what you or F.A. Julio suggests. When choosing between the UEFA or you two, it's an easy choice where to put my money. Perform a network trace and you can judge for yourself. I'm not interested in any further comments from you. Go insult others. --Sb008 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I started adding attendance for this edition of Nations League v2 in those links worked perfectly. This issue has been working since yesterday. It's the first time ever is happening. Personally, I think it will work again as previously. And please calm down. Island92 (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Which part of "I'm not interested in any further comments from you." you didn't understand? --Sb008 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a response, politely, regarding what's happening lately with these links. If you don't care and your reaction is simply this it is not a problem of mine. This was my last message. Bye.--Island92 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: There was nothing wrong with your question. But you didn't bother to wait for an answer and just reverted the solution to the issue, cause you know anyway it's only a temporary issue. That's anything but polite, it's rude. Why ask in the first place if you know the answer already? If I wouldn't care I wouldn't have put any time and effort in finding out what's causing the issue. What isn't a problem of mine, are your rude actions and I know best anyway attitude. Even when you told, I'm not any more interested in your comments, you ignored it twice already, another fine example of how polite you're. Sad all over. --Sb008 (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sb008,

I noticed you make template brackets. I need help making a bracket for the 2022–23 NBL season page. I’m having issues making one since the bracket I want is complicated.

I have an example of two brackets which need to be merged.

Lastly, I need best-of-3 (3 legs) for the Semi Finals and best-of-5 (5 legs) for the Grand Final series. If you could help me or know someone for help, that would be greatly appreciated.

	Semifinals							Grand Final
	1	Melbourne United	74	72	73
	4	Tasmania JackJumpers	63	79	76
								3	Sydney Kings	95	90	97	X	X
								4	Tasmania JackJumpers	78	86	88	X	X
	2	Illawarra Hawks	79	87	X
	3	Sydney Kings	89	99	X

Alextigers (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2022 (AEST)

Hi. I noticed you made some changes to Template:Bracket entry for Module:Bracket builder to try to add legs. The whole thing is a mess, and I've been working to replace it all. I've created a (similarly-named) module that is much easier to work with: Module:Build bracket that will eventually replace all of the old stuff. What bracket are you trying to add legs to? I can quickly swap it over to the new module if you would like. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 02:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

---

---

---

Hi Pbrks,

The bracket I need 5 legs for doesn't exist yet. Based on the request of Alextigers in the post before yours, I'm trying to create a bracket which requires a 5-leg match.

I'm not familiar with the NBL, but what I understand from it is:

• The top 6 teams from the regular season get a seed in the play-offs corresponding with their rank in the regular season.
• The teams with seed (rank) 1 and 2 proceed dirctly to the semi finals.
• The teams with seed (rank) 3 and 4 play a prelimiry match against each other. The winner of this match proceeds to the semi finals.
• The teams with seed (rank) 5 and 6 also play a preliminary ,atch against each other. The loser of this match is eliminated.
• The loser of the match between 3 and 4, and the winner of the match beetween 5 and 6 play an extra preliminary round for the last spot in the semi finals. So for the loser of the match between 3 and 4 a double elimination applies.
• The prelimiary matches are 1-leg games, the semi finals 3-leg (best of 3) games, and the final is a 5-leg game (best of 5).

Best of 5 games are not uncommon, also in tennis we know 5 set games. Hence the need for the 5-leg option.

he official bracket for the NBL play-offs (play in tournament) can be found here

To create this bracket I tried using {{#invoke:Bracket builder|main}} (which uses {{Bracket entry}}), After your post I did the same by using {{#invoke:Build bracket|main}}. Below the results of both

This is not an actual bracket, but just example of what it could look like

Script error: No such module "Bracket builder".

Issues

• 5-leg option missing (solved)
• No proper option to have 2 outgoing paths (see paths after match betwween 3-4).

All I manage to create is Input Output Comment {{Bracket entry|path|outup1}} {{Bracket entry|path|outin2}} Single line (border) at bottom right branch Where I would like to have: Input Output Comment {{Bracket entry|path|NEWNAME1}} {{Bracket entry|path|outin2}} Double line (border) at bottom right branch This would require creation of: Input Output Comment {{Bracket entry|path|NEWNAME1}} Single line (border) for both bottom branches. I would comsider "outupsplit" an appropriate know for NEWNAME1. However this name is already in use. I don't understand those names which "now" contain "split" since we're not dealing with a "splt". In those names I would replace "split" by "mid" (from middle) Similar, in case the brecket would be upside down, creation of: Input Output Comment {{Bracket entry|path|NEWNAME2}} Single line (border) for both top branches. I would comsider "outdownsplit" an appropriate know for NEWNAME2. However this name is also already in use.

• Coding, I would use "em" instead of "px".

Same example data as above. Bracket is not parameterized, so not suitable for template use.

Improvements

• Unlimited number of legs
• Can create 2-outgoing paths

Issues

• Not posible to have or more headers in 1 column (round). "RDm-k" is described but not implemented.
• Doc; Not clearly explained when to use a " ", "," or ";" between 2 elements in a "colX-colY-paths" parameter value.

Remarks I didn't study the module code in detail. Also I dont know the status, under contruction, beta or someting else, but:

• Like above I consider the "split" value not the best choise and would prefer "mid". If you look at the last example (3-way bracket), it says "col1-col2-paths = 2:out down split, up, up, up, out up down in split, up, up, up, out up split;". If we only look here at "2:out down split" the "split" says "out" should be attached to the middle of the row. Then why not simpley use "2:mid down"? And the total would become |col1-col2-paths = 2:mid down, up, up, up, mid up down mid, up, up, up, mid up;". "out split" and "in split" are identical shapes and they only differ by in which path cell (column, left or right) they're placed on a row. Based on the other path codes we know if it's the left or right path cell on a row. Also the order gives it away, "mid up" would be "out up split" whereas "up mid" would be "up in split".
• I would include 'style="overflow-x: auto;"' for tables with a larger amount of columns (rounds) (rather see horizontal scrollbar for the bracket only than the full page) and 'style="white-space: nowrap;"' to avoid wrapping of long team names. This applies to for {{#invoke:Bracket builder|main}}
• The code shows "boldwinner" which is undocumented. Also, it's not that easy to implement. I think there are (ignoring group matches) basically 3 variants:
  1. 1 leg games: highest score decides on winner.
  2. 2 leg games: Aggregate score decides on winner. There're are 2 subvariants, Ties were away goals count double for deciding the winner and ties were away goals don't count "extra".
  3. 3+ leg games: As far as I can think of it's always an odd number, 3, 5, 7 etc. Best of X matches/sets. Here the winner is decided on who won most legs, not who scored most goals/pts etc. In the bracket example above, the match Adelaide v Melbourne, Adelaide scored in total 1 pt more than Melbourne, but Melbourne won the match with 2-1 legs.
• Use "em" instead of "px" and 'style=width: Xem;"' instead of 'width=Y'.

Don't have much time right now, hence didnt look in depth at the code or made the necessary changes.

For now, only multiple headers in 1 coulumn (round) should be made possible.

--Sb008 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4TeamBracket-PagePlayoff-Extended has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it wrong here, sorry. Kante4 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop censoring information. The data is the same in the previous qualifications for 2022, 2020... We have to report the qualified team for the next Euro 2026. The 2024 qualification is part of the list of entries for the 2026 qualification. It's important to understand and to explain to everybody (that is the purpose of wikipedia) that Each Euro is linked to the previous or next, due to the qualification system put in place by EHF. So it's important to put that and to explain how teams qualify to current but also next Euro. In 2024 Euro Qualification, regarding the ranking, countries are qualified to 2024 Euro final tournament but some countries are also qualified to 2026 next Euro for different phases (relegation round, phase 2 or phase 1). We cannot ignore this, these are the EHF rules, and again in previous Euro qualification, you can find the same data. Frozizi (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The practice is to put * name player {{goal|}} under goals1 or goals2. Island92 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Very odd practice since the result isn't a bulleted list. Even in case of multiple goalscorers it's odd to use a bulleted list.

Instead of

goals1 =
*player1 ...
*player2 ...

It would make more sense to use

goals1 = player1 ...<br />player2 ...

Right now, it's basically "abusing" the fact that the bulleted list isn't rendered correct --Sb008 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Users such more expert than me, such as @Mediocre Legacy: or @S.A. Julio: always use the first case, I do as well.--Island92 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: That's why we have the expression "if one sheep is over the dam more will follow."

BTW, to name a few, on FR-WIki, IT-Wiki, NL-Wiki, NO-Wiki, RU-Wiki and UK-Wiki, they all use the second case. Probably only non-expert editors on those Wiki's. --Sb008 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but such really reliable users per their edits, from whom I've learnt a lot, with good reputation.--Island92 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Must be why I see so many pages with deprecated tags/attributes (including 2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship). Will deal with that later. --Sb008 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bulleted list is used to generate a plainlist, thus following accessibility guidelines per WP:UBLIST and WP:PLIST. As MOS:ACCESS says: Do not separate list items with line breaks. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2023 UEFA European Under-21 Championship, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: And why are they not constructive? --Sb008 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page for discussion of this topic. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what is fully wrong with the section, because there is a lot of good information in the section. I read it and it didn't look subjective, it looked pretty neutral. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveSport2006:

• Group D fair play: Basically only Poland as "disadvantaged" team complaining. So subjective. The statements "threw the ball away chaotically" and "defended poorly" are opinions. The statement "a few of the players even cheered for Germany" requires a mind reader to know why they cheered.

• Romania vs. referees: Again basically only Romania and Romanian related sources (newspapers) complained. So subjective again. The referees were indeed poor, but that doesn't mean they were biased. If Montenegro hadn't won that game, the Dutch had been in the semi-finals. Did the Dutch complain?

• Bronze match referees: And agan basically only conplaints from 1 site, France.

Referee issues are rarely fact unless the referee(s) admit(s) to have been biased. In general it's opinion and speculation, especially if it's an opinion not shared by the full international press.

This wasn't like the hand goal of Maradonna in the WC 1986 quarter final match against England, where the whole world, the referees included, agreed they made a mistake.

• Slovenian espionage scandal: the title alone "espionage". An Espionage claim requires hard prooof. This is Wikipedia and not a gossip tabloid. Let me do some speculation too, maybe the Serbs found the camera somewhere and staged a setup to make it look like espionage.

Wikipedia is FACTS, FACTS and FACTS from independent reliable sources. The section has been removed more than once and not just by me.

Sb008 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to all of them outside of the last one because an EHF official said a statement about the problem, and Slovenia also made a statement about it. Your reply was fine until you said 'FACTS, FACTS and FACTS' and turned really arrogant. Did you have to say that? I was asking a genuine question because when I first read it last November, coming from a country that doesn't care about Handball, I thought it was facinating. So when it was deleted, I was sad (back then I didn't have an account). ILoveSport2006 (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ILoveSport2006: It wasn't meant as trying to be arrogant. All too often people try to add content which is not fact based or one sided. The Slovenians indeed admitted it was their camera, but they didn't admit to espionage. A couple of questions come to my mind when I read it. Has there indeed been a surprise party? If so, most likely it was somewhere in the center area and not a goal area. Where the camera's aimed at that part of the field? Where the camera's aimed in such a way that they would catch a offense play practices. Where there indeed images recorded which could ne useful in some way. Hidden in carton boxes doesn't sound good. But then, the carton boxes were maybe only be used to keep the camera's in a forward down position. I think if they really wanted to spy, they surely could have come up with a smarter option. According to expectations, Slovenia would win the match against Serbia anyway. So why would Slovenia risk getting caught and penalized? So many questions which can be asked. I don't know the answer to any of them. So basically all is speculation. Maybe it was indeed espionage or just stupidity to leave the camera's there.

The most plausible controverse is Spain not winning with a 3 goal difference against Germany. As is Spain proceeded with 2 and Germany with 0 points to the next round. If they had beaten Germany by 3, Poland instead of Germany would have proceeded to the next round. But not only that, Spain would have proceeded with 0 and Poland with 2 points. So Spain would proceed no matter with, but a 2 or 3 goal difference decided which other team proceeded and whether Spain would proceed with 2 or 0 points. So Spain had a very good reason to win by only 2 goals. But nothing you can prove. --Sb008 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 2023 World Women's Handball Championship, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pindrice (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pindrice: Provide the page for that policy or guideline. See WP:RS --Sb008 (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for entering Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/5001–10000! Keep up the good work! Timothytyy (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted Your edit on the Top goalkeepers table. It is better to use the percentage with decimal number, as it shows correctly the percentage of saves made as it is the main date for the ranking. The table of Top goalkeepers on the other hand is ranked by "goals scored", and the percentage is just a side data. Tuvixer (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvixer: The consensus is to use the info as published by the EHF or IHF in their PDF files and not as on the web page which is not in line with the PDF. Their ranking order is first based on (saves) efficiency without decimals and next on last name. Therefore, your opinion is in my opinion not better and violates the consensus. --Sb008 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clarification. Tuvixer (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvixer: Nema problema. --Sb008 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you creating the templates for flag football. You were marvelously thorough in creating additional templates I didn't even consider. Obviously templates are not something I am good at and I am grateful that you are. Thank you again for jumping into this! Tbennert (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Beachhandballbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to 2006 European Men's Handball Championship qualification. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 08:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, she is listed here: https://ehfeuro.eurohandball.com/women/2024/player-stats/ I somehow think they just forgot to add her in the PDF for some reason. And it's not because she has played only 3 matches, so has Petersen from Faroe Islands. The numbers are correct, as the EHF-page also lists. So please stop editing this. Thanks! Best Chartah (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chartah: For all editions, at least the last few, the PDF has been used as source and is listed as reference. If you feel, Raasok should be listed in the PDF as well, you should contact the EHF and request a correction. If you feel, instead of the PDF the info on the web page should be used, you should start a discussion first. Fact is, the PDF is currently the concensus which you don't change by an edit war. So, either accept the consensus or start a discussion first to get it changed. Until then stop edit warring. --Sb008 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks to you, I HAVE tried contacting EHF for them to correct the PDF. However, it does not change the fact that her numbers are correct. It's sad you feel you need to have this power. PDF or web site, the numbers doesn't lie. I also think you need to change your attitude. The last time you questioned "my claims" it was based on me watching THE ACTUAL GAME (which you didn't do until later) and falsely accused me on being wrong and providing a program to to track all actions in a game. I'm a dedicated statistics nerd, so I aim to be correct. That's why I find it sad the way you are behaving. Chartah (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chartah: First of all, Wiki is primary about facts. In this case we have a "problem", since the EHF provides what seems to be conflicting information in the PDF and on the web page. Maybe they made a mistake, or maybe they use criteria unknown to us. Maybe a criteria is a minimum of X saves after Y matches (Raasok 22, Peterson 28, both 3 matches), to name a crazy option. Only the EHF can solve the problem or clarify the difference between PDF and web.

Furthermore, consensus is an important criteria. Either established by vote, agreement or by common habit. A consensus is not something fixed for ever. You can "challenge" a consensus by simply making a change. If noone reverts it, it becomes the new consensus. However, if the change is reverted, the next step is to start a discussion to see if a new consensus can be reached, or even an official vote where the majority decides. What you don't do, is starting an edit war.

So far the consensus is to use the PDF for 2 reasons. Contrary to the PDF where the ranking order is based on the efficiency %, the web page is ordered on the number of saves. When using the web page you will have to mention the web page as reference as well cause otherwise the information in our wiki tables doesn't match with the information in the reference. But there's a problen with the web page. All the web pages for Euro '24 will be gone in the future. You can't find the web pages of Euro '22 any more. For most pages that can be solved by using an archive site. However that doesn't work for the stats web pages because those pages are dynamic. When you switch from "Top Scorers" to "Goalkeeper Saves" or "Fastest Goals" or any of the other sections, the page is rebuild because a have script is executed which mosr likely performs a database query and builds a new web page. No matter which section ("Top Scorers", "Goalkeeper Saves", "Fastest Goals", etc) you use, the URL will not change, however the HTML code for the page will. When you use an archive site, this site will archive it as a static page. Intially it will still work to change the section on the archive site because the java scripts are still on the site. But as soon as the site is gone you can no longer switch section. You can still see the archive with the defailt section "Top Scorers". But you can no longer see any of the other sections. So sooner or later you don't have a reference any more (or a reference, the PDF. which doesn't match with info on the Wiki page.)

So, all in all, I think there're are very good reasons to use the PDF as source and build our Wiki tables in accordance with the info in the PDF.

If you ask me, neither Raasok or Peterson belong on a rank at the top. People who think Raasok is better the Lunde or Solberg, you can count on the fingers of 1 hand. Maybe that will change in the future, but right now she isn't.

As long as nerd is not a synonym for someone who's always right, it means little to nothing to me, you being a dedicated statistics nerd. Besides, are you a statistics nerd or a nerd of statistic (overview) results? For the handball stats you don't need to be a statistics nerd, it are very basic statistics formulas.

I remember we had another disagreement in the past, but I don't recall the details. What's in the past, I leave in the past. I most certainly don't intend to remember all my disagreements from the past to become an old bitter man. Just enjoy that Norway has by far the best team. I even considered once (as a joke and compliment) to write Lunde a letter and ask her to marry me so we would have the best goalkeeper.

Finally, feel free to think of me as soneone who needs to have power. You have the same power as me, the facts and Wiki rules. At least I try, but not always succeed, to obide the Wiki rules. Something you should try occasionally as well. --Sb008 (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not bother to comment much on your patronising answer. But I will say this. If you keep up this way of behaving, it will make people not want to edit Wikipedia any more. My suggestion is to be more humble, and stop using words like "claims", epecially when sources ARE provided in terms of official statistics or pictures taken from the actual game in question (like the previous "disagreement"). And yes, I agree, neither Raasok or Petersen should be on the top. But the numbers don't lie, whether you like it or not, so Raasok should have the placing she desereve. And of course everyone knows Lunde and Solberg-Østhassel is better. That is beside the point, and you know it. Chartah (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not goimg to repeat why we use the PDF and who to address about the difference between the PDF and the web page. Also I'm not going to repeat how tp change the existing consensus.

What I would like to add is, someone who states "I'm a dedicated statistics nerd, so I aim to be correct" is hardly the one to suggest I should be more homble. That's the pot calling the kettle black. --Sb008 (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]