User talk:Aitkegs

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1874–75 Scottish Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meadow Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that you shouldn't tick the "minor" box when making substantial edits to an article (e.g. expanding and/or creating an information box). Minor edits are meant for things like spelling mistakes, grammar corrections, formatting.

Thanks for creating 1898–99 Dumbarton F.C. season, Aitkegs!

Wikipedia editor Lstanley1979 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice work.

To reply, leave a comment on Lstanley1979's talk page.

Learn more about

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1907–08 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayview Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aitkegs, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1878–79 in Scottish football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acton Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1919–20 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1920–21 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rothesay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1926–27 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Station Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1938–39 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blairgowrie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I noticed you put place of death missing for Charles Ballantyne (footballer), do you have any info if this guy is deceased or not? Yes it is unlikely he is alive-but remember if there is no date of death to be found and they were born after 1905 put them as possibly living. Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dumbartonshire Cup, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://scottish-football-historical-archive.com/dumbartonshirecup.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not

• Hi, I saw your comment on this article: "(No copyright issues as SFHA site permits use of content if acknowledgment made public)". Can you link to where that is said on the SFHA site? Our license is fine with that kind of release, but we need to explicitly link to it in the article so re-users down the road can plainly see the terms. Thanks for your work! Crow^Caw 18:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again, and sorry to be a pest! Thanks for adding the link to the site, but that still is insufficient to allow direct copying of the text. We need to link to where the site explicitly states that the content can be re-used. This is because anything that goes up here can be re-used by anyone else for any reason, so we need to make sure that the source does allow that to happen. Thanks, Crow^Caw 20:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Tony Hepburn, Aitkegs!

Wikipedia editor

Maybe a small bio would add some good info?

To reply, leave a comment on Newrunner769's

Learn more about

Hi, I'm Musa Raza. Aitkegs, thanks for creating Sam Bryceland!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. No other pages link to this page.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1961–62 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobby Campbell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1965–66 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayview Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1964–65 Dumbarton F.C. season

added a link pointing to Drew Nelson

1965–66 Dumbarton F.C. season

added a link pointing to Drew Nelson

1966–67 Dumbarton F.C. season

added a link pointing to Drew Nelson

List of Dumbarton F.C. players

added a link pointing to Drew Nelson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1969–70 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gala. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1970–71 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glebe Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1974–75 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recreation Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1975–76 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayview Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1979–80 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe O'Donnell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There is obviously a mistake on Benny Cairns birthdate, can you correct it?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

on John Eadon, I am guessing the year span for Ayr United should be 1917-1918? Frietjes (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this on other articles as well - please ensure you include page numbers for books. GiantSnowman 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1981–82 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glebe Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aitkegs, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

Hi, while adding honours to players, you might want to use this which is a standard format. Cheers, GiantSnowman 08:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aitkegs. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1962–63 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Bowie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tommy Coyne (footballer, born 1987) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Footballer who only played at semi-professional level (Scottish Division 3), fails

WP:GNG

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jellyman (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to have misunderstood my rationale for PRODding the Tommy Coyne article. I wasn't claiming that it suggested he was a full-time footballer, I was pointing out that as he hasn't been one he therefore fails

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1970–71 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rotherham F.C.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ross McKinnon (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet

WP:NFOOTY#Association football

guidelines - never played for Motherwell and all other teams were not in Professional Leagues

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crowsus (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the books isn't enough, has to play a league game. And despite its name, as you know the SPFL contains many clubs who aren't fully professional. I fully realise that sometimes full time clubs fall to the third tier and part time clubs go up to the second, but in general the Championship is the lowest full time level so that's where the project put the cut off for a pro league. Ross never played at that level and has since dropped to the Juniors. AfD to follow. Crowsus (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want it to seem like I am picking on you personally as that is not what it is, but I have added Coyne to the AfD list (spotted it while adding note for Ross McKinnon, and I only came across him due to making links from his uncle's article). Coyne hasn't been updated for several years in relation to his career, and as I have stated in the notes, it doesn't mention his dad although there are sources for that. The big thing of course is that he has never played at 'Championship' level which seems like a reasonable cut-off for Scottish football. He has ended up in the juniors which is a goood level to play at, but not meriting a separate wiki article. Crowsus (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Tommy Coyne (footballer, born 1987). Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Jellyman (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Judging by your comments on the Tommy Coyne deletion discussion, it appears you are not aware of our notability criteria. Wikipedia does not allow articles on everything and anyone – we have set standards on the level of notability required for an article. For footballers, the requirement is that they must have played in a fully-professional league – i.e. the Scottish Premiership or Championship. Cheers, Number 57 15:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Craig McLeish has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable semi-professional footballer, hasn't played in a fully professional league, only source is statistical. Fails

WP:NFOOTY

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jellyman (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aitkegs. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig McLeish 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/Craig McLeish until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jellyman (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aitkegs. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aitkegs. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wanted to discuss with you edits on some of the Dumbarton F.C. seasons articles from the other day. My understanding is that the consensus for club season articles is to follow the

In you edit summaries (here and here) you suggest that it is "more informative as it includes opponents details". After reviewing the page, I can't see any new information which has been included now and was not or could not have been included beforehand so I'd appreciate it if you could point it out to me. There is also no reason that any additional information cannot be added with an additional column in the results tables.

You have also suggested that the style you have used is "Per style used for all Scottish club records since 2000". This is not true, see 2018–19 Kilmarnock F.C. season as an example.

Let me know what you think.

Also, a wee tip- when writing the score of a football match, the consensus is to use an ndash (–) and not a hyphen (-) so 3–2 instead of 3-2. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: I seem to have Aitkegs talk page watched for some reason,can't remember why. Anyway, I became aware of your message. There are 19 season articles for Scottish clubs for 18-19. Do you know how many are using the format you suggested? Just one, Kilmarnock. All the rest use the footballbox template. So you are definitely in the minority there. I'm sure there are better things you could be doing with your time than trying to force another editor to conform to your preferred style for articles which are never likely to have many views, are (in my view) improved by the changes and when the format you propose appears to be out of fashion and possibly obsolete. Maybe you should seek clarification at WP:FOOTY? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crowsus: I'm not forcing anyone "to conform". I'm asking to discuss. If my tone does not suggest that then I apologise.

I had thought that upon reading Aitkegs response the next step could be WP:FOOTY to either seek consensus on whether to use MOS in its current format or to change it and update articles accordingly. I prefer it in it's current format as the information is not hidden in a collapsed box and it doesn't rely on 30+ templates per page (although much less for the specific articles in question in this discussion) but I'll change how I edit if the consensus is for the footballbox.

I'm still interested to hear Aitkegs views and perhaps we can pursue a discussion at WP:FOOTY afterwards to find the best way forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: no sorry, my tone was harsh, yours was fine, but tbf was accompanied by reverts. I can see your points with the format, but I think if one person does it one way, no real need to change or suggest them to change it to the other, both have their benefits and drawbacks. Hopefully Aitkegs will respond§soon and we can take it from there. Crowsus (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1882–83 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paisley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edits on

@Stevie fae Scotland: A 'concensus' means a meeting of minds. As far as I can see there has been no such thing. All that you have are those like you who favour MOS (outdated as you have admitted) and those like me who favour footballbox (used by the vast majority of current club season page authors). I have no intention of spending time updating an outmoded style when there is a perfectly good style available. All you are going to achieve at best is a style 'war' - and I cannot see, for example, 19 of the 20 Scottish club pages for the 2019-20 season being re-drafted because a so-called style wasn't followed. As I said previously guidelines are set to provide guidance - they are not mandatory rules. So unless the footballbox style is 'banned' then I, like the majority of my Wikipedia footy stat colleagues, will continue to set out factual data in that preferred style. Aitkegs (talk)

Can we work together and try and change it then? The table meets those policies (that doesn't mean it's perfect) and football box doesn't but that doesn't mean there aren't other policies to take account of that would hold more sway in a discussion to change it. What we can't do is just go in and say 'I like this' or 'it is this way' (just because it is doesn't mean it ought to be) without backing it up. There may also be a third solution somewhere in the middle that is better for everyone. I'll have another look and see what I can find and I'd really appreciate any help you can offer. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: I think you are missing the point. The vast majority of authors of Scottish football club season pages have moved on from the outdated MOS. Even if we were to look at updating MOS, which I don't intend to, it would still mean convincing those other authors to change the hundreds of pages which have already been using the footballbox style, and that just wouldn't happen. In fact you are arguing against your own point of view - you cannot say on one hand that we must follow the guidelines on MOS, and then on the other consider changing that style, as that would be against the 'guidelines'. One way or another I think you have to accept that as more information becomes available e.g. through British Newspaper Archive etc., then authors will be looking to present that data and MOS doesn't have the capability of doing that but footballbox does.Aitkegs (talk)

I don't know how many times I've said this, but the whole point in the MoS is to ensure that information is presented in the same way so it keeps articles consistent and avoids confusion. If it needs to be updated or changed to reflect current policies and guidelines then it should be done (although it currently meets a lot more than the football box style does) and articles updated accordingly. That can take time, but it doesn't mean it can't be done. The only problem I can see here is that you haven't pointed out one policy which football box meets and could, therefore, lead to a proper argument to implement the change. All you're saying is that it is this way so it should stay this way. You've actually argued that editors will look to include more information yet the style you advocate defaults to hiding that information which is completely pointless, you might as well not add it in.

I won't make any changes to any articles just because I like this style (something that won't convince any editor), I'll do it because it reflects the policies and guidelines and I'll be happy to discuss any changes with any reasonable editor. Who knows, perhaps that will lead to a discussion that can implement a progressive change to the MoS if it needs it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: I know you've said it - but it doesn't make it right. If the guidelines say stick with MOS then by definition, changing it is against policy. And to say that footballbox is pointless because it 'hides' information behind the score is just nonsense - the information is there for those who wish to see more information - and that is the whole ethos behind Wikipedia. After all how do you know that all readers wish to see is 'date', 'opponents' 'score' venue' 'scorers' and 'attendance'. Whoever developed MOS thought this was sufficient at the time - but time has moved on as I've tried to explain.

If you wish to use MOS then I have no objection - but use it on the pages you have created - and leave the majority of us whose only 'crime' is to favour another style of presentation alone. Aitkegs (talk)

Forgot to mention a further flaw in your argument. If footballbox is pointless by hiding data - then MOS must be too as you have to click on the 'venue' to find out where the match took place - I rest my case.

That's not how Wikipedia works. Everyone has the right to edit and contribute to any page, no matter who created it. See

WP:OWNERSHIP. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1896–97 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beechwood Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Aitkegs (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1911–12 Dumbarton F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enoch Gilchrist 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/Enoch Gilchrist 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. Jellyman (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2007–08 Dumbarton F.C. season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stats article that does not meet

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

nor is it a sports almanac.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1999–2000 Dumbarton F.C. season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stats article that does not meet

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

nor is it a sports almanac.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1996–97 Dumbarton F.C. season 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/1996–97 Dumbarton F.C. season 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.

Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hugh Goldie (footballer, born 1923) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Gould (footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The article Andy Crawford (1960s footballer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of significant coverage to establish notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the