Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 18:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! 10mmsocket (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
What is your issue with the changes I just made? Don't revert everything, especially as everything was explained. By all means changed individual things, but better still explain yourself on the article's talk page --10mmsocket (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi Joseph1891! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Bath City F.C. that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 00:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Joseph1891. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Bath City F.C. seasons, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Joseph1891. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Bath City seasons 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Twerton Park you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An article you recently created, Vandanel Sports, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969TT me 10:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bath City F.C. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. LizRead!Talk! 21:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago39 comments3 people in discussion
Please can you stop changing the honours for now? The talk page didn't find any consensus, so it would be better to leave it for now. Michaeldble (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi man, let me explain why I have continued to change the honours. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Around 4 months ago, Mathewhite, (you're probably aware of him), stated that he believed a lot of the honours sections on club articles contained excessive bolding, so I spent days un-bolding them with a bit of his guidance. However, I've realised from other admins, such as Chris the dude, Number57 etc, that the honours sections were in fact not excessively bolded, and that Mathew was simply stating his preferred format. I tried to re-start this conversation last week and it was really cool to see that a lot of people were engaging, but the discussion halted for whatever reason, and when I asked again no one responded, I simply got:
"To be honest, mate, I’d drop the stick. It feels like the discussion has run its course”.
"If you think people stick to set formats, check out the new season articles that will be created shortly, if not already."
From my perspective, it seems that people aren't to bothered with trying to get a new concrete honours format, now I'm simply just trying to un-do some of the work I did a few months back, whilst trying to make it as clear for the reader as possible, I've asked a lot of people in real life, and they said they believe that the Italian Style honours section I'm attempting to implement now, for mainly west country clubs looks far clearer and easier to read. Hopefully that makes sense. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Basically, people are just too wapped up in more important aspects of this site to really care about formating honours. Would be interesting to hear your thoughts and what your prefered format is though, be nice to combine some ideas mate! Joseph1891 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I really don't understand how a consensus hasn't been found years ago on this tbh, it's very frustrating that there's no uniformity - I appreciate you attempting to find some. I don't think it's that people aren't interested, I think it's more that the discussion comes up often without a solution so people are fatigued with it possibly. Personally, I don't think bolding is too important, I assumed the bolding was done if a trophy was actually lifted (cup/league winners) and not done if it was just a promotion/runners-up but I'm not an expert. As for the Italian style, I'm not a fan aesthetically, I would stick with the current one until they find a consensus (eventually). Also, was there a reason you put the year instead of the season: 2023 instead of 2022–23 for example? I've seen it on some pages before but wasn't sure on the reasoning Michaeldble (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I know, really odd, you'd think they'd have come up with a concrete format years ago! I'm also a tad ocd on these things so find it very frustrating when there's no consistency/uniformity.
The reason I stated 2023 rather than 2022-23 is that it just looks way simpler. It's easier to see that a team won a cup 5 times in 1961, 1968, 1988, 1992 and 2009, than 1961-62, 1967-68, 1988-89, 1991-92, and 2008-09. Plus when people hover over the link, they'll clearly see the season. Hopefully are readers are smart enough to assume that the year stated is the year that the club lifted the cup. (e.g. not the start of that particular season)
That's a shame I (obvs) really like the Italian style... what would be your prefered format if you could pick, be good to share some ideas? maybe if you showed me an example. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is simpler but I think that most sources like the BBC would say that Manchester City won the PL in the 2022–23 season, not that they won it in 2023. I think it would be more accurate to keep that format personally.
I would suggest something similar to what most clubs have atm:
I would also link to each tournament's page and add the no. times they've won a tournament, if it's more than 5/6 times. Michaeldble (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
That looks good! Yeah you're right about stating the season rather than just the year, also agree that we shouldn't state the number of times unless it's been won 5 or more times.
What about this, using Plymouth Argyle as an example with a few adjustments:
I really just don't see the need to state winners or champions, someone on the talk page made that suggestion, really clutters up the honours section. Think we should only state anything if the title was won via play offs. Always thought runners up/promotion should be stated in a seperate section with honours, don't see how finishing 3rd/4th should really be regarded as a trophy/honour, I wouldn't for my club. I think trophy icons look really good personally. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes I like your layout. I do think it looks a bit tidier without stating champions/winners but I don't have a massive preference. Do you think new readers would understand it easy enough though? Also, in your example, where would you add the play-offs?
Soccerway (which we often use for player honours) also often add runners-up for a league onto their honours too you could argue. Yes, I like the images, are there ones available for all tournaments (PL, FA Cup, EFL Trophy etc)? Michaeldble (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I also think we should include cup runners-up somewhere. Rochdale finishing as runners-up in the League Cup or even Plymouth as runners-up in the EFL Trophy deserves a mention imo Michaeldble (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes but the Italian Wikipedia do that, and use cups officially so many outdated rules that make it harder and more confusing for readers imo… would only ever use it for the hounours section, But thanks anyway mate, appreciate it. Joseph1891 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
What the Italian Wikipedia does has no bearing on what we permit. Each Wikipedia sets its own rules, and cannot tell any other Wikipedia what they can or cannot do. Nearly fifteen years ago, we decided (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 4 and some subsequent archives) on the rules laid down at MOS:ICONDECORATION. If you want to go against those, you must first get those rules changed, and the place to do that is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I do agree with @Redrose64, I think it would be best to get consensus before making too many changes ideally. Michaeldble (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but as I told you earlier, no one seems to be bothered, or they are simply too busy with more important things. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that's the issue though. I don't think it's a bad idea to make the tiers/bolding uniform by yourself, but it seems slightly wrong/disruptive to change things so radically without any consensus at all. I would definitely wait before changing everything personally as it'll probably just end up reverted anyway Michaeldble (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree, but I think I've decided I'm not going to start adding cup icons, which would be a big change, and likely require a consenus. So simply bolding a league/cup name and removing the words "winners and champions" is hardly "radical". It sounds bad, but everything would take about 5 years to get done on this site if it had gain consenus first, especailly it seems, with this matter. Joseph1891 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thought you said you liked my layout bro. Anyway, for Chesterfield's EFL Trophy runners up I added into the records section. Joseph1891 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's more about consensus really, two people's opinions aren't really enough imo Michaeldble (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I also don't think we should be removing runners-up from the honours section too, considering many sources still include them Michaeldble (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you wanna start the dicussion again bro, go ahead, untill then I'm just doing my best to make it clearer for readers, and kinda undo my own work. Joseph1891 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't get why you're undoing my edits, you do realise the versions you restored them to were my edits too - and they didn't have a consensus. At the end of the day a clearer, simpler format should always go ahead of a complex one, and I beleive the new one is just that. Before I started editing them, bolding was present for nearly all of the articles, I'm simply undoing my work a few months ago, whilst trying to implement a clearer and more uniform format. Joseph1891 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Everything you're doing (editing wise) is against what you said to me, that's all. Joseph1891 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Apologies for the confusion then - I'm not trying to undermine your work. As I've said a few times, whether you think consensus is likely or not, I still think you should get it before removing winners/champions as it's quite a big change. Michaeldble (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also for cups, shouldn't they be 2011-12 rather than 2012 for those honours? (in the example of Chesterfield) Michaeldble (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nah no worries, sorry I came across a bit strongly there. Communication can be quite hard to get right on this site sometimes.
Personally I don't belive removing winners/champions, should have to go through consensus first, if people really don't like it, and explain their reasoning, then that's perfectly fine, it's not really a huge change, we already do the same with players articles and another eidtor on the football project talk page agreed that it just unessasrily clutters the section.
Cup icons on the other hand, would be quite a big change and I won't be adding them, unless a consensus is found. (even though they look really nice)
From my experience, cups were always stated at the actual year they were won, not the season, but I don't rly care tbh. Maybe leaving the season keeps it more uniform? Joseph1891 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
No worries mate :) I'd prefer to keep cups in the season rather than year personally. Also, I'd prefer to keep runners-up (league & cup) and promotions in there for now, until people say otherwise Michaeldble (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Another point mate, I'd leave the minor titles to reserve trophies only. Not sure if it was a mistake for Portsmouth F.C., but winning League Two shouldn't be under minor titles, it was won by their first team in a fully professional league. Same goes for Nottingham Forest F.C.. Michaeldble (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
No sorry that was a mistake for Portsmouth Joseph1891 (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Personally think some clubs really need the minor title section, it’s so cluttered otherwise, many already had them too. For some clubs winning the Watney Cup, Isthmian League Cup say, should not be in the same bracket as winning the FA Cup, League Cup etc. makes more sense to separate honours into larger titles and small titles. Rather than leagues and cups imo. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, please don't remove the runners-up & promotions, such as in Notts County F.C. and Newport County A.F.C. - all the club honours should be uniform, it would be strange to include them on some but not others. Michaeldble (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for letting me know, I'll go back and add all of the runners up and promotions sections over time mate, sorry If I got rid of some. Joseph1891 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
By "over time" I mean in the next few days/weeks. Joseph1891 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate it! Also, on Salford City's for example, it would be best to keep their Level 7/8/9 wins in major titles as it seems arbitrary to cut off at Level 6 imo. If their first team won a league/trophy, it probably shouldn't be minor I would say. Michaeldble (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks man! One thing, is that I can't really agree with that tho, I think I title should be deemed "minor" depending on how big the trophies that they have won are. Should be based on notability.
Reserves honours should be in the reserves articles - or not included. completely differen't set up/manager staff etc... Joseph1891 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Who defines what league is notable or not though? If we said level 6 is notable for one team but not others, surely it's just making the problem you want to fix worse? Michaeldble (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Okay shall we say:
If a league that has been won is more than 3 tiers below that club heighet achivement.
E.g. for Shefield Wednesday, as they have won the First Division, the National League would be deemed "minor"
And any cups that are friendlies/one match or for specfic counties only should be definitely be considered minor for all teams, unless they have only won such trophies (but we're basically talking about tier 7 and 8 there).
Latest comment: 11 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Liverpool F.C.. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:B.Mattythewhite (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry mate, but you're the only one I've encountered so far on this site who prefers absolutely no bolding in your edits, a few months ago I attempted to make all of the clubs articles similar to that of how you style York City as you said they contained ecessive bolding, which I later found out from other admins that this wasn't true. If there is any section in an article that should be bolded, it should be the honours section, please stop shoving an extremely outdated: "MOS:B". Thanks anyway. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not sure why you feel our current MoS is "extremely outdated", but if you disagree with it I advise you seek consensus for your changes instead of going round dozens of club articles applying your own preferred format. Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I’ve talked to other editors about this, and about your style. And I have tried to gain consensus several times. Many preferred the new format, to the one with no bonding. Don’t worry I won’t be editing York City’s, have a nice day anyway and enjoy the sun. Joseph1891 (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's courtesy to tag editors when discussing them, but hey ho. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Mmmm, did literally say have a nice day and enjoy the sun, genuinely, not sarcastically. Which one would assume is a tad more of a “courtesy” then @Mattythewhite, but “hey ho.” Joseph1891 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Assuming that Mattythewhite refers to these edits, I have two points. First, the bolding is not something that should be done: these are header cells, which are bolded by default, bolding what is already boldface may show on some browsers as extra-heavy type, in others as normal bold. Such edits should only be done with consensus, at WT:FOOTY or higher. Second, altering scope=row to scope=col is incorrect: per the HTML 5.2 spec, scope=row means that the header cell applies to those data cells to its right; and scope=col means that the header cell applies to those data cells below it. By altering row to col you are saying that each header cell applies to the ones below it, which is plainly nonsense because the whole column is header cells; and by doing so you are creating accessibility issues. If you are doing this on aesthetic grounds, that is definitely the wrong thing to do. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I apologise for wrongly editing Liverpool’s article, I really don’t mean it in a malicious way which seems to be everyone’s thinking. My end goal is to make it as easy and accessible for all viewers as possible, as I’m a very new editor compared to some other users, I’m bound to make mistakes along the way, thanks for letting me know Redrose. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please, stop edit warring and achieve a consensus first. 29 trophies won by Man City is not comparable to Real Madrid's 101 or Man United's 67. Other clubs, such as Tottenham, Brighton, Newcastle and many others, do not use your table. Seek consensus on the talk page first. Monerals (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog driveedit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Joseph1891. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vandanel Sports, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks for your help :) Joseph1891 (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bath City F.C. seasons/archive1, specifically I would like this article to gain featured article status, please note that you cannot take it to featured article status, because it's a list. Lists may, however, be nominated for featured list status, see WP:WIAFL and WP:FLC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Somerset derby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This article: "Somerset Derby" is based on the supposed Football rivalry between two non-League clubs: Bath City FC and Yeovil Town FC. Albiet, the article contains a lack of real evidence supporting this. There are few references and they are poorly sourced. There is nothing stating how supporters/fans feel about the other club, merely a couple of newspaper references labelling it a "rivalry" due to location. There are far more major rivalries that do not have their own articles, therefore I question this articles notability, accuracy and reliability.
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 18:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! 10mmsocket (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bath City F.C. have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:Bath City F.C. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
_Trophy.png)
Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Liverpool F.C.. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Per MOS:B. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Template:Aston Villa departments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
