User talk:NapHit

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

I'll fix the wording of the blurb and article. If you could do me a favor, please consider running the link-checker tool on the links and repairing/replacing any dead ones. There are a few archive links already, so it pays to check the others. The tool has options to insert Internet Archive links on the spot; just make sure that the "Apply common fixes" box is unchecked or the table formatting may be negatively affected. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help by creating the rest of

Why you do not reply now ? --Alexiulian25 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we can persuade an editor to create a timeline chart showing Liverpool's silverware wins plotted over time? Could be used on all the History of... articles and the main club one, too. --Dweller (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good idea Dweller, if I was more technically savvy I would do it myself. If we can find an editor proficient in timelines, then I would be more than happy to include this. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you'll be happy to know I've switched to support at the Liverpool History FAC. Would you mind taking a look at the York equivalent; it's starting to get very lonely there! Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2008–09 Liverpool F.C. season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

]

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

UEFA club competition
... you were recipient no. 394 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So is today's Anfield! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and today's

Today it's four years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... six years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... seven --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at

]

	Lead Writing Award
	To NapHit, for some nice work on the lead of some cup final articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you get to Sydney I'll shout you a beer or two. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hai, I have

Hi, I'm unsure why you have removed the table I added listing the winners by year. If you wish it can be placed underneath the "by cyclist" or "by country" section but I think the table allows readers to get a better idea of which cyclists had the longest careers, which cyclists only succeeded in one tour and which cyclists won multiple grand tours in the same year. I certainly don't think the table needs to be removed as it doesn't distract from the page at all and only adds useful information for readers.

I removed it because I think a change such as this should be discussed first before it is implemented. The list id featured and represents our best work, so any big changes such as this need to reach consensus. Also, I do feel that it is simply recreating content from existing articles, with the only benefit being that you can look through all three tours at the same time. I'm not sure this is truly needed to be honest. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

Hi, can you give me your input in my recent FLC, at List of S.L. Benfica players (25–99 appearances? Thanks. I've had a look at your FAC.--Threeohsix (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I've been off-wiki for the past few days and for some reason I didn't receive a ping to notify corrections. I'll try and get started on the copyediting tonight. If you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season/archive1 and leave some feedback I'd be greatful. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've been busy myself and only just noticed you hadn't got back to it! That's partly my fault as well, as I formatted the ping template incorrectly. Sure, I'll try and have a look over the coming days! NapHit (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure if this is among your areas of interest, but wonder if you could review this nom. Thanks, —Vensatry _(talk) 08:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit, thank you for helping me out in the FL review of the list that I had nominated. It passed, and your review and support were a significant part of that. Thank you. Lourdes 01:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article Belgium national football team is under review as FAC again. At the first review you raised several issues that needed to be solved. It took some time to cope with these and other comments, yet I thank you for your critical input as it helped to get the article forward. You are warmly invited to have a second look now. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

Hey NapHit! Could I trouble you to review my current football FLC nom? Fun fact – Liverpool reached the final of that friendly in 2007. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, NapHit. 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]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

Hello. You've been one of the main updaters of Liverpool numbers. I too am interested in updating the numbers after each game and was wondering if you could offer some guidance, like what exactly to do, what pages. Another thing is I noticed there are three pages listing the Liverpool players - below 25 appearances, 25-99 appearances and above 100 appearances - would it be possible to combine them all into one whole list? Cheers. Ae245 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is now including the World Club Cup, and previously including the Intercontinental anyway, it should now be renamed per

Thre's definitely an argument for a name change on the article. I think it might be best to bring it up at

WP:FOOTY to gain a consensus. We're not going to get one between us, so a wider discussion is necessary. I can see the arguments for both sides. NapHit (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, was just dropping you a message out of politeness so you knew I wasn't being a shitbag about the revert. :) Koncorde (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I understood your revert. Hopefully, we can get some consensus about whether the page name should be European and International and go from there. :) NapHit (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently reverted my edit to List of Liverpool F.C. managers re. the addition of a cumulative summary of Kenny Dalglish's managerial statistics citing "not sure that's necessary" as the reason. Could you please explain why this is the case, thanks.

I would say that the purpose of the table is the documentation and easy comparison of managerial performances as individual persons. Therefore, I believe it is important to not only view Dalglish's two terms as manager in isolation, but also his overall managerial achievements for comparison against what is the overall performances of all the other managers. I think this adds to the article; it does not detract from it. Also note the reference used from "LFC History" for Dalglish's statistics are actually already of his two spells as coach combined – his separate spells as coach are not detailed statistically there.

TurboGUY (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure we need another table below. I think a good compromise would be to include a note detailing Dalglish's cumulative statistics. I do think that would be helpful to the reader. NapHit (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. I have added a note. Feel free to adjust if you're unsatisfied. I have also reduced the table's text size to 95% since recent edits have made it so large. TurboGUY (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and found nothing saying only one table is allowed. Are you sure keeping one table is not just your own personal preference? I separated the tables because they were messy and that returning it to one table makes it messier and uglier with all the chunk of data in one place with broken formatting. In your revert you also reverted my section header changes. Is that deliberate? Additionally the table at present goes over the standard webpage layout size [1] so I felt something must be done to restore it to normalcy. Ae245 (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the other manager lists, they all have one table. It's the consensus. If you want to make wholesale changes bring it up first, before making them. What is the point in having three tables, when the info can be in one? It's illogical and makes it a pain for the reader having to navigate between the three. I didn't notice you had changed the headers, but I would leave them as they are, there's not much use in changing them. I think it's great that you want to contribute to the project, but you stop and think about where your energies are directed. Fixing something that isn't broken is not the way forward. The list is a featured list, which means it's been reviewed by editors and recognised as some of the best work on Wikipedia. Making wholesale changes to it without consultation is going to get reverts. Also when you message someone on their talk page, start a new header. It's jarring to find the convo in a header for a different discussion. I think you'll find most tables on Wikipedia go over that limit. Changing it for the sake of that is not worth it. NapHit (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would it be alright for some small additions like adding the following rows to the table: (1) length of tenure (after From/To), (2) goals for and against (after P/W/D/L) and (3) total honours? Ae245 (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, goals for and against is fine as is total honours. Those are good ideas. Not sure about the tenure one, that would make the table a bit too long. Just had a look at other manager lists and the majority don't have the tenure listed, so I'd skip that one, but the other should definitely be added. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NapHit. Would it be appropriate to remove U21 rows from Liverpool player stat tables? There is a bit of inconsistency in those articles, some U21 players have them and others don't. I think they should all be removed because personally U21 (or other youth levels) is not that much of a career. Ae245 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you link to a page so I can see one of the tables? I'm not 100% sure about the tables you're referring to at the moment. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the career statistics table like at Curtis Jones (footballer). It has the youth stats but not at similar articles like Joe Gomez (footballer). Ae245 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see the reason is that Jones played in the EFL Trophy which is a professional competition, hence why it's included. I understand why you've asked the question as it looks strange at first glance, but then it should be included as the EFL trophy does count as a professional competition. I'm sure there will have been a discussion at

WP:FOOTY about it, might be worth checking there. You won't be the first person to question this so the fact it's standard practice means they should be included. NapHit (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, I see. Didn't know about the EFL trophy. It's okay then. Thanks. Ae245 (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hughes (footballer, born 1865) 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. ミラP 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a debate with a friend on what team was the most successful team in rugby world cup tournaments. What followed was a simple Google search and the bold font revealed on Google that New Zealand was the most successful. That is why I felt the page needed updating, I kept attaching the details in including the fact that New Zealand won back to back. I only stated that because South Africa were excluded from the two first world cups due to political reasons. They competed in less tournaments and won a equal number, this gives them a 44% tournament win ratio and New Zealand a 34% win ratio. Making South Africa the most successful team. If you found my edit bias that might have been misinterpreted by me but if you could in your own words edit it to the factual information that would be appreciated.

Kind regards. Duv6 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, whether it is the end of the season or not is irrelevant, the paragraph stands alone, without modification. It can be edited, if necessary when more is known. Who put you in charge, anyway? You seem to have assumed control.

No, it is relevant. The season is currently suspended, it's not over. That season would be fine in the current season article, but in the history section of this article as what happens next is still up in the air. N one put me in charge, but seeing as multiple users have reverted your edit, I think it's fair to say there's a consensus against your point of view. NapHit (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find, until a few seconds prior to you writing that (i.e. when your admin friend stepped in to help you with the

You're adding a paragraph about a season that hasn't finished to the history section, do you not see the problem? By all means, add this to the season article, but the history section should be updated when the season is concluded whenever, or however, that is. Right now, we don't know what is going to happen, so adding stuff to the history section is counter-productive. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to disagree. What is written has happened, it has become part of their history despite whatever happens in the future. Even if, as you have been alluding to, the season is concluded in its totality. At this moment in its history events are of interest to followers of the club, right now. Unless that is, you can explain just how counter-productive they are.

Simply because it's

recentism. In five years, the whole of that paragraph will not be included in the history section. It's as simple as that. There will be a sentence or two about how the club won the title, assuming they do, and that will be it. I'm not going to keep going back and forth over this, I have better things to do. NapHit (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Formula One into List of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not needed? The total number of trophies won is a perfectly reasonable addition to the page at this point. BRACK66 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary. All that's needed is the number of times individual trophies have been won, nothing more. NapHit (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances) and List of Liverpool F.C. players (25–99 appearances), I think the dates in the lead should be removed as they are unnecessary because the section below them is dated plus the facts without them read fine. For example, "351 players have played fewer than..." looks good by itself and doesn't need a date. What do you think? Ae245 (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, not sure they're needed. Think the date in the player's section should suffice. Just remember that if a player makes their debut or moves to one of the other lists, you need to change the number of players who are still playing for the club on those lists. Otherwise, keep up the good work! :) NapHit (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely! Ae245 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should undo your disruptive reversions (like this) on the matches contested by the team you're fan of (Liverpool), but I rather prefer answering you the reasons. The only change I made was to introduce paramethers for a better alignment of the line ups so they can be viewed better. Could you tell me what is the problem with that? Fma12 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are my edits disruptive when I'm reverting it to a standard which is common across the majority of these articles? There's no need to introduce this change, it adds little benefit to the reader. They don't align 'better', as you say, because the man of the match part is out of alignment with the squads following your edit. The problem is, you're making change for the sake of making changes without actually improving the article. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed the dispute between you and LeoC12 at the Liverpool F.C. article. I agree that fourth choice captain is overkill but I think that an exception to that may be required. Van Dijk out for the rest of the season and Milner and Henderson are no longer guaranteed a starting place (or match fitness for that matter). And as a result, Wijnaldum has effectively been Vice-Captain for the last month. Normally I would say that fourth choice isn't needed but, given the current circumstance that Liverpool's squad finds itself in, I think they should be included. Even if they are removed once Henderson and Van Dijk return to the starting lineup. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and well, but not really a reason why they should remain. It smacks of

WP:RECENTISM. The key question is do we need to include the 3rd and 4th captains on an encyclopedic basis? It's hard to argue we do from my perspective. I'm sure there was a discussion about this a few years ago and it was decided to keep it to the captain and vice-captain. There's more of an argument for it to be mentioned in the season article, but I think the case is weak for it to be included in the main article. NapHit (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggested keeping them on the club's article rather then the relevant season because people are most likely to look for that sort of info at the main page about the team rather then a specific season one. And the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide easily accessible information isn't it? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

It's a good point. Maybe it should be included. Might be worth mentioning it at the GTC to see if there's a consensus for its inclusion. NapHit (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

curprev 19:59, 7 May 2021‎ NapHit talk contribs‎ 40,543 bytes −252‎ Undid revision 1021975749 by 2.99.136.141 (talk) we don't need to include this in the table undo Tag: Undo

English clubs were not permitted to play in Europe following the 1985 Heysel Stadium disaster, English clubs were commonly featured in the final up until 1985-86 and the ban explains their sudden disappearance and subsequent time playing catch-up after their re-introduction in 1990–91.

Without this information the list does not present an accurate reflection of the footballing landscape at a glance.

A common reference point in football culture for European football prowess is often a nations representation in European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals over a period, which is misleading in this instance without prior knowledge of the ban.

Please can we consider some method of representing this fact on the table? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be mentioned. It's not relevant to the scope of the list which concerns the finals. NapHit (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

]

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Charlton (footballer) 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/John Charlton (footballer) 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.

BilledMammal (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. I saw you on another similar FLC - if you have the time, would you please give my nom a look. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Charlton (footballer) 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/John Charlton (footballer) (2nd nomination) 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.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at

2022 FA Cup Final

instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:2022 FA Cup Final
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:2022 FA Cup Final, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NapHit! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"it's standard convention at WP:FOOTY to wait until the end of the season. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't justification to override consensus"11cookeaw1 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to go and find a guideline confirming this. It's been convention for years now and if you go on most club season lists you'll see the current season isn't included. You can bring this up at

WP:FOOTY if it's bothering you so much, but I'm sure you'll get the same response I've given you. NapHit (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlie Jowitt 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/Charlie Jowitt 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.

Joeykai (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Thomas Green (footballer) 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/Thomas Green (footballer) 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.

Joeykai (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harold Fitzpatrick 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/Harold Fitzpatrick 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.

Joeykai (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you edited my edit on the 2006 FA Community Shield. For future reference, I would like to understand what a reliable source is; I thought that the one I used was fine, seeing as it mentions all the winners and losers of the Charity/Community Shield from the modern era.

Also, the reason I only put "Shield" instead of "Community Shield" or "Charity/Community Shield" is because the name of the competition changed in 2002, but it is still the same shield that the two teams are competing for. I.e. Blackburn and Everton faced each other in 1995 when it was known as the Charity Shield, but by 2006, it had been known by its current name for a few years. Gregwholikestrains (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:SOURCE for what constitutes a reliable source. Generally, it's newspapers or renowned authors etc. NapHit (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here !

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Charlton (footballer) 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/John Charlton (footballer) (3rd nomination) 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.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

other than the one source, no other reliable sources found

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. ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can u please stop removing the Dubai Champions Cup from the Lpool FC article. Twice now, you are the ONLY ONE who has ever objected to its inclusion and your reasons are not strong. You object on the basis that it's not listed on the Clubs official honours website, but so what? The London Sher isn't included on the official site either yet that's included on the wiki Lpool article. I took it to the talk page, it's been there for over 3 weeks and have received zero objections apart from you. The fact that NO ONE has objected (apart from you) implies overwhelming consensus to include. Please refrain from removing it again unless there is clear indication that others object. Thanks Koppite1 (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact no one replied doesn't imply a consensus at all. There isn't one if I oppose it, as that's one for and one against. You added it to the page in May and it was removed by another user back then, so I'm not the only one who doesn't feel it shouldn't be included. The Sheriff of London competition was the forerunner to the Community Shield, which is why it's included. I'm going to remove it again, as there isn't a consensus for it to be included. As no one has responded at the LFC talk page, feel free to leave a message at

WP:FOOTY to get a wider discussion on its inclusion. NapHit (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

LFC History, which is affiliated with the club, lists the match as a friendly on their season page here. That's further evidence it shouldn't be included as it's considered to be a friendly competition rather than a competitive and consequential one. NapHit (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed the correct procedure taking it to the talk page. Unless there are other objections, please refrain from removing for now. There isn't consensus that you should remove, Koppite1 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, just seen the link that you have provided. That Lpool class it as a friendly is more of a valid reason and i will accept that. Koppite1 (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NapHit. I'm just posting to let you know that

Please note that I moved the appearance date up four days after the original day was requested for another article. The new date's blurb is Wikipedia:Today's featured list/August 22, 2022. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rasied the issue. So I created the discussion] Please participate in.Footwiks (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NapHit,

I wanted to ask if you possibly know how to convert PNG football logos to SVG, I want to do so for a non league club, as PNG images look blurry on mobile, thank you very much. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I did anything like that. I'm not much help I'm afraid. Your best bet would be to ask Peejay, he uploads a lot of the formation images on finals articles so I think he knows how to convert images from PNG to SVG. Regards. NapHit (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no worries thank you so much for your help! all the best with editing. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry, I'm not really that au fait with how to convert images to SVG. I work natively in SVG for the line-up graphics, so I never need to convert. – PeeJay 18:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth leaving a message at

WT:FOOTY @Joseph1891:. Someone there might be able to help you out. NapHit (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi again @NapHit, I wanted to ask how one creates the football club's custom kit's as seen in the info box of almost every club. Not sure if you know how? Thanks very much again. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea how you create those kits. Your best bet is to ask at

WT:FOOTY. I'm sure someone there will be able to tell you how it's done. NapHit (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

don't worry I know now thanks. Joseph1891 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 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) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Congratulations, NapHit! The list you nominated, List of FIFA World Cup winning managers, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, NapHit! The list you nominated, List of UEFA European Championship winning managers, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, NapHit! The list you nominated, List of English football championship-winning managers, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve contributed to the featured article status of the Liverpool F.C. article which is I’m messaging as I’m away on holiday for the next week. Keep an eye on Knowleche (talk) who is trying to rewrite the article based on the alterations they made to the LFC Women’s article. For example, in the lead: Liverpool F.C. is quote, “best known for it’s men’s first team”, and then in the body of the article, “the club also stated, both men and women's first teams would be referred to as Liverpool Football Club or Liverpool, unless distinguishing between the two sides in rare cases”. Completely made up. I’ve only just seen this yesterday but they’ve been at this for the last week. They added the women’s section to the body, which of course is fine, and I cleaned it up by removing the unsourced material (clearly promotional by the editor from an LFC Women’s standpoint). Nampa DC (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are abusing your rights deleting my updates in tour de france because you are not the last resort of what can be in an encyclopedia and what not. I am sure that the groupset of the winner of one of the most important sport event in the world is most important of the List of Liverpool F.C. players (1–24 appearances). I think you consider your favourite pages as a your personal property. You deleted the work of 2 hours without messaging it to me. 151.28.59.17 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the last resort and nor are you. Referring to a list of Liverpool players is irrelevant, it's a different list and not related to the Tour de France. I don't consider them my personal property at all. Anyone is free to edit wikipedia and these pages. But, I'm also allowed to disagree with edits I think don't improve the encyclopedia. You've raised the issue at the talk page now, so let's see what consensus is formed. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

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 Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

The article

The article 2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season for comments about the article, and Talk:2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Stevie fae Scotland -- Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2023 (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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]