User talk:Nitsansh/Archive 2

Help

hello again, i am collecting some infos about the asian games. can you help me to find the exact name of Israeli medalists at Asian Games ? thanks in advance --Mohsen1248 (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the names in Hebrew, if that helps...--Nitsansh (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks,it is good, at least it is better than nothing, maybe i learn Hebrew one day !! but you make me very happy if you write the name of some of them in english , specially israeli medalists in Weightlifting and Tennis at 1974 Tehran Games . thanks again --Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited one of the names in the article Tennis at the Asian Games. As to weightlifting... I would translate the names as Shlomo Ben-Lulu (silver and bronze in heavyweight) and Adi Brana (3 bronze in light-heavyweight). Translation from Hebrew could be tricky because the language has almost no vowels... also, some names are translated into Hebrew from foreign languages which spell different than English...

If you need help with other sports, just ask... I see that athletics is allready done, so what remains is swimming and shooting... Here are the names I see here...

Yoav Ra'anan (diving, 1954, gold&silver)
Ivona Tobis (swimming, 1966, silver&bronze)
Nehemia Sirkis (shooting, 1970, silver&bronze)
Shlomit Nir (swimming , 1970, 2 bronze)
Dan Brener (swimming, 1974, gold&bronze)
Dov Ben-Dov (shooting, 1954, bronze)
Avraham Melamed (swimming, 1966, silver)
Henri Herschkovic (shooting, 1970, silver)
Shimon Fridman (shooting, 1970, gold)

I also have the composition of all the teams... 3 medals in basketball, 2 in swimming (relays), 3 in shooting, 1 in football, 1 in tennis, 1 in fencing...

I guess you can skip basketball and football, so the rest are...

Swimming:
- 1966 medley relay (silver): Yoram Schneider, Avraham Melamed, Gerson Shefa, Moshe Gertel (actually, Shefa should be before Melamed as he swam the breaststroke leg and Melamed the butterfly)
- 1970 medley relay (bronze): Yoav Ya'akovi, Dan Stern, Yoel Kende, Moshe Gertel (once again the order is jumbled, Kende was a breaststroke swimmer so I guess Stern did the butterfly leg)
Shooting:
- 1970 prone (gold): Henri Herschkovic, Nehemia Sirkis, Micha Kaufman, Zelig Shtroch
- 1970 3 positions (2 silver): replace Sirkis with Shimon Fridman, the rest are the same.
Tennis:
- 1974 mixed doubles (gold): Paulina Peled & Yair Wertheimer
Fencing:
- 1974 team foil (bronze): Nili Drori, Nurit Carmi, Inbar Guy, Orli Schreiber.

--Nitsansh (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot, i completely received my answer. just 1 question ! why you did not mention Gershon Sheffa (1966, silver&bronze) , did you forget him? or my source is wrong ? thanks again --Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake... Gershon Shefa won 3 medals in Bangkok 1966: silver in 400 medley, bronze in 200 breaststroke, silver in 4X100 medley relay... he just missed another one - in 100 breaststroke he was 4th...

Actually... the entire swimming team in 1966 placed in the top 5 in all events, and won 6 medals in 13 races...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful information --Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics results

Hi Nitsanah! Thanks for your enthusiasm in creating the article about the results of the tennis in the Olympics. However, since this hasn't happened yet, such an article is crystalball-gazing and also empty of content. I've moved it here for you. You can create similar articles in your userspace and move them when you have some content to add. Thanks! ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 22:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See pages:

--Nitsansh (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Shapira Bar Or and Max Jayben

I saw you made some edits concerning Nimrod Shapira Bar Or in Israel at the 2008 Summer Olympics, but it seems like you don't know the full story. Since Max Jayben was caught using drugs, he was replaced by Nimrod Shapira Bar Or in the 200m freestyle heats. It was a special decision because Nimrod couldn't ask to be included in the young athletes competing in the games (due to Max being young athlete). If Max appeal will be accepted, he will go to Beijing instead of Nimrod, what means one of them will go, but it still not sure which of them. If you know Hebrew, you can read this and understand. In addition, Nimrod will only compete in the 200m freestyle competitions (if he'll go), and not in the 50m and 100m freestyle. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 10:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Jaben is suspended. He is not going to Beijing. Nimrod is definitely going to Beijing. In fact, at this moment he is on board the plane to Beijing. There's no way the decision will be reversed now. Everything I edit on this page is based on reliable sources. --Nitsansh (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max could appeal on the decision to suspend him (it's written in the link I gave you, from the official site of the Israeli Olympic committee), but it seems like it's too late now.
Anyway, Nimrod will only compete in the 200m freestyle, like written in both of the sources (mine and yours), so I'll delete the others. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 06:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod will swim 200, 100 and 50 freestyle. He is allowed to swim additional races even if he has not made the int'll criteria, as long as he is the only Israeli in the race. My edit is based on reliable Israeli sources. There's nothing in the source you have that says he doesn't.--Nitsansh (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no source saying he'll swim the 50m and 100m freestyle. you can't say that he'll swim in those heats just because it doesn't say he won't. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 23:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I read it somewhere... I'll look for a source, but it would be probably in Hebrew...--Nitsansh (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in Hebrew are as good as sources in English. Anyway, I added {{fact}} for now. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 11:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnastics table and comments

Hi, I like your new artistic gymnastics table, the one I made was pretty crappy, but I did have a couple of issues with it that maybe you can figure out, since I couldn't. First, differentiating between all-around and apparatus finals, which I couldn't do with your tables or with mine. Second, I just don't like that the rank is below and not to the side, since this is the only table on any nation page that does that. However, it does look much clearer, so if you could consider a way to reconcile those two things, that would be great, as I've had nothing :)

The rhythmic gymnastics tables look very good, much better than the previous version, so I'll transfer them over to all of the other nations. Finally, I'm going to revert the change you made to tennis, if you don't mind, since in no table are bronze medal matches listed, and if they're in for tennis, then they have to be in for some of the bloated tables like judo and archery, which would just cause more problems.

I don't mean to sound rude or anything, just that the main purpose of these tables was to standardize results across all countries, so if you make changes, it affects every other country in that event.Edged (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people omitted the bronze finals, that's their fault... bronze finals exist in all team and combat Olympic sports (with the exception of boxing and badminton). That accounts to about a dozen sports: football, basketball, volleyball, beach volleyball, handball, baseball, softball, water polo, tennis, table tennis, judo, wrestling, fencing, archery... I'm not sure about taekwondo, because they award 2 bronze medals in this Olympics, so there may not be bouts for bronze...

In my opinion the better format would be to list athletes on the top and phases on the side, because the way tables are formatted now they would be too wide (some allready are with no opponents and scores inserted yet).--Nitsansh (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would have the same problem, though, as some sports may have 15-20 athletes. The width problem has had some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics, but we couldn't come to any consensus. For now, I've just been doing them as they are, but it is a major issue. As to bronze medal finals, you're right there are many sports that have them, but I'm not convinced that they can't be considered under 'final', and then differentiated with a coloured background, as there is a major crowding problem in some tables. Edged (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not 15-20 , a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but I can find several cases of 10, and the widest any table gets currently is nine rounds. Edged (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the smart thing to do is to delete unused columns once it's obvious they are obsolete... I think the most matches/rounds in any sport is 6, so eventually there is no need for more... but you have to put bronze medal matches in some way...

BTW, I noticed that there is no column for round of 64 in fencing... this round exist in 4 of the 6 individual events (the exceptions are men's foil and women's epee, that's why they could be held in one day). I don't like the excessive use of "wheat" cells in some tables... also very long or wide cells should be avoided. Besides, I don't think tables have to be used in any case... no table is better than badly done table...--Nitsansh (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to bronze medal matches, I think that it's best to distinguish them with background colour, rather than add another column, but that's more of a concern over overall table width, if there's a good way to add them without bloating tables like archery or badminton, they'd definitely be better in. I'll see about the fencing table, thanks for that. I definitely think something is needed to organize, and while you're right that there are plenty of areas where the tables used right don't look great, I think they are much clearer than the bulleted lists in most of the 2004 pages, and they provide sorely needed organization and linking between nation pages as well. And as to unused columns, while I agree that deleting them makes sense, it's possible that there not be any unused columns, especially for larger nations. Edged (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most trouble is likely to be judo. Including preliminary round, which is very rare, there are 6 main draw rounds including the final, 3 rounds of repechage, and the bouts for bronze. That's potentially 10 columns for results plus one for the judoka's name and one for the event (weight category) - a total of 12 columns. If we switch the table by 90 degrees with the columns for judokas and the rows for rounds, we'll have a maximum of 9 columns for the few nations that have judokas in all weight categories (there are seven for each gender, plus columns for judoka and event).

Also look out for trouble in track cycling - the sprints have multiple rounds with repechage and classification rounds as well.

Sports without repechage have a maximum of 7 rounds in the case of a 64 draw, which I think is the most in any sport. In the raquet sports, that's more than the maximum entries per gender per nation, so a 90 degrees switch might be a good idea there as well. In fencing, a full team could consist of 8 individual players and 2 teams.

Another solution could be making the text smaller in the cases of too big tables. It wouldn't be very nice to see different sizes of fonts on the same page, but there's no perfect solution either way...

There's no way but experiencing the various options... for such tests, you can use the results of 2004 Olympics.

That's all I have in mind at this moment...--Nitsansh (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I hadn't thought of smaller fonts, but it might be worth trying. You're right that the 90 degree shift makes sense for some sports, but I'm just worried it would be too jarring, and that if you changed all the sports, there'd be a huge amount of work, and you'd still have a width problem. As for track cycling, some of those events still confuse me, especially the sprint (sometimes the races have two cyclists, some rounds three and some rounds four, it's enough to drive you nuts), so I'll check over 2004 pretty close to be sure. :) Edged (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, the sprint format is as follows:

The head-to-head phase (after qualification) starts with 18 cyclists, who compete in 9 pairs. The 9 winners advance to the second stage. The 9 losers compete in a repechage with 3 heats of 3 cyclists, in which the winner advance and the other 2 eliminated. That leaves 12 cyclists in the 2nd stage, who compete in 6 pairs. Once again, the winners advance, and the losers compete in repechage with 2 heats of 3 cyclists. The winners advance, the other 2 eliminated. That leaves 8 cyclists in the quarter final stage, and from this stage onwards there are best-of-3 head-to-head races. The quarterfinal winners advance to the semifinal, while the losers in this stage compete in a classification race for 5-8 places. The winners of the semifinal advance to the final, while the losers meet in the bronze medal race.

Therefor, you've got the following stages:

Qualification
1st round (18 cyclists, 9 heats)
1st round repechage (9 cyclists, 3 heats)
2nd round (12 cyclists, 6 heats)
2nd round repechage (6 cyclists, 2 heats)
Quarterfinals (8 cyclists, 4 heats)
Semifinals (4 cyclists, 2 heats)
5-8 classification (4 cyclists, 1 heat)
Bronze medal race (2 cyclists, 1 heat)
Final (2 cyclists, 1 heat)

Now go and figure out a table for this event...

The other cycling events with multiple rounds are the pursuits, kierin and team sprint, but these have a single-elimination format... if I recall correctly, the head-to-head phase of the individual pursuit begin with 16 cyclists, while both the team pursuit and team sprint begin at the quarterfinal stage (8 teams). I'm not sure about the kierin... You can check the Olympic schedule for details... each round is listed there....--Nitsansh (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

israel - european

thanks for your message but (1) if you had checked my contributions, you would have seen that i introduced this "fact" in different articles and (2) it's relevant to put it as well in Israel at the 2008 Summer Olympics since at the end (in the "Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, People's Republic of Chin" popup) israel in sorted under europe --- so i will correct it again kernitou talk 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what bother you is the template of nations, then put a note on the template.--Nitsansh (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis at the 2008 Olympics

Hey, I'm wondering why you put Niemeyer back into the list of the 56 guys who qualified as per the ATP rankings. It's rather clear that he did not qualify in this manner (in fact I'm not sure how he got selected at all, but that's another question -- can't even be a protected ranking). If you undo stuff, could you at least give some reasoning in the edit summary? For what it's worth, I agree with the changes to the women's list, but not with this one. I don't see how this can be anything else but an ITF invitation spot.

MrYIndeed (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Nitsansh, but Niemeyer was selected as the highest ranked doubles-only player in the ATP singles ranking. I believe that for changes after August 2nd, the highest ranked player who is in the city and can sign in gets in. Dancevic knew there was a strong possibility of getting in, and was so in Beijing, as were Schuettler and Vanek. But if they were the only ones there, then the entry would default to the next highest ranked player, Niemeyer. What's interesting is that a further pullout would appear to place one of the Chinese doubles players in the draw, unless another player on the ATP list makes it there first. Edged (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation. Interesting that no other doubles player is ranked higher. In that case, I can live with the current version of the article, although it does look a bit strange to have those last minute entries together with the others. The second point about Tanasugarn (see below) still stands, though.

MrYIndeed (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: also, Tanasugarn was officially listed as "ITF invitation" spot by the ITF. The problem is that the document has been replaced and the new version does not list who qualified in which way. I guess the cleanest way would be to merge all three categories, since clean separation (with references) is difficult.

MrYIndeed (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is on the talk page of the article.

Edged's explanation is partly right. In an event that a player in the singles acceptance list withdraws after midnight of August 2 (Beijing time, I presume), his place is filled by the highest ranked player "on site", IE a player who is in the tournament as a doubles-only player. As it seems, Niemeyer got in by this manner, because ITF was informed of Ancic's withdrawal after the above deadline. The other three replacements in the men's singles and the two in the women's singles occured before the deadline, as these players are ranked just below the cut off (allthough 2 USA players were ranked higher than Schuettler and Dancevic, and one of them could have entered as USA has just 3 players in the men's tournament). If you want to make another category for late replacements, please do it, but they definitely shouldn't be in the same group as ITF places.

As to Tanasugarn's category... I didn't see her listed as ITF place... since one of the players selected by the triparty commision withdrew, it makes sense that her replacement should be chosen by that commitee, as was the case with an Algerian player in Athens. I read the replacement rules thoroughly and I didn't see any reference to such a case, so it's not clear who actually invited her...--Nitsansh (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was listed as "ITF place" in one of the intermediate pdf files by the ITF (which is why I moved her to there back then). Of course that file is long gone -- there's no citable source either way, so I'll trust my memory and move her back for now, if you don't mind. I'm not going to change anything in the men's list. The alternatives are all equally hairy, because you have to classify players as "initial acceptances" and "replacements". The more I think about it, the better the current way of organizing things seems. MrYIndeed (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the rules, the division between direct acceptance, ITF places and tripartite invitations was valid at the time of the initial entry list. The rule book doesn't make a difference between replacement players of the various categories. In the rules, there are 3 distinctive cases:

If a player withdraws until August 2, and his country has a player who is ranked within the entry cut-off, he is replaced by another player from the same country.
If a player withdraws until August 2, and his country doesn't have non-qualified players within the cut off, he is replaced by the highest ranked player whose country doesn't have 4 players in the tournament.
In case of a withdrawal after August 2, the replacement is the highest-ranked player from doubles-only players. If there's an available replacement player from the same country, he gets priority over players from other countries. If I recall correctly, there was such case for the USA women in Athens: Lisa Raymond replaced Capriati who withdrew after the deadline.--Nitsansh (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does make a lot of sense in this context. Sela, Gremelmayer and Berrer withdrew before August 2nd, so they were replaced by Schuettler and Dancevic. Ancic withdrew late, so he was replaced as per point three. I'm not entirely sure about Craybas. Actually I entriely overlooked the full regulations on the ITF webpage all the time and wondered why the regulation summary was so fuzzy. For the Tanasugarn case, see page 12 of the regulations, point 3c: "Players or a doubles team who receive an ITF place or an Invitation and who subsequently withdraw shall be replaced by alternate players selected by the ITF." MrYIndeed (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Eurbasket women 2009.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurbasket women 2009.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article EuroBasket 2005 Women incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page EuroBasket 2005 Women to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2008 NFL Week Six

There are four teams that have a bye week this week - Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Kansas City and tennessee - every team has a bye week in the season since 1989. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:40 AM US EDT Oct 8 2008.

Speedy deletion of International cricket in 2009

A tag has been placed on International cricket in 2009 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Shicoco (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008/09 Australian cricket team tour to India

Are you trying to threaten me? I strongly object to the tone you've adopted in speaking to me in my talk page. It was unnecessary. I would rather advice you to be more civil. Now, regarding the article, User:Aru123 had earlier contacted me in my talk page and I've already expressed my stand and my concerns about the issues that might arise. However, User:Aru123 hasn't responded yet. And if you so desire, let me post our correspondence on the talk page of the article itself.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 15:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-pasted my correspondence with User:Aru123 on the talk page for the article. Regards -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my message sound offensive to you. I definitely don't want to threaten you. As the situation is at the moment, the existence of the article you started beside the "normal" article on the tour is very confusing, and IMO must not continue. There should be one article, or else "your" article should be renamed to reflect the fact that it deals with events before the tour and not the tour itself.--Nitsansh (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTC Time format

It's a standard at Wikipedia to use 0000 sans colons (0011 Tuesday as an example) when listing UTC times. There really is no need to add colons. NoseNuggets (talk) 10:44 PM US EDT Oct 15 2008 (0244 UTC 16 October 2008).

That's not true. Wikipedia's time is presented as HH:MM (with option to add seconds).--Nitsansh (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue titles

Hi, i'm curious why you changed all the conference standings titles to blue? just a preference thing? Personally I think the blue looks really bad and clashes with the rest of the infobox style. In the future, please discuss on the talk page before making drastic changes to these templates. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green font on grey background is barely visible. You need a more contrasting color. --Nitsansh (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The font is black?? (000000 = pure black) Must be your display... Ryan2845 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black is default font color. Why you need to specify it?--Nitsansh (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was left over from an older template i used, isn't needed i suppose. A result of copy/paste Ryan2845 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better get rid of it. Just makes troubles... BTW... I fixed some wrong categories of conferences, hope you didn't undo that as well... Also... the tables are too wide, one is about 40% of screen width, three are overflowing the screen width... that has to be fixed too...--Nitsansh (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i'll get rid of them later on. I left the categories you fixed. As far as the table width, it really just depends on your personal screen resolution. For me 3 tables takes up less than 50% of my screen width. Try increasing your computers resolution to a higher value maybe? The whole thing is now only slightly wider than it was before. Ryan2845 (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table width should be defined by percentage rather than pixels, so it can suit a wide range of systems... --Nitsansh (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is defined as pixels because they are also used as an "infobox" please use conditionals (if, elsif, etc) if you are going to change the widths so it doesn't mess it up when used as an infobox. Here is an example where the same template is used where the width should match the infobox above it 2008 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team Ryan2845 (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for all "boxes". Width by pixels look different on different systems.--Nitsansh (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply to infoboxes, please see the infobox information for more Template:Infobox Ryan2845 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "college team" box use the same width as the "conference standing" box, both are 25em. That's a pixel-based measurement, and it should be avoided. The same box look very different with a resolution of 1000 px or 2000 px. You don't design web page that suits a certain platform or setting, but looks ugly on others. --Nitsansh (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but its a wikipedia style thing, not my personal preference. It's quite universal across the site. Take a look at the US Sentators template for example, it also has a fixed pixel width. Percentage based sizes don't apply to infoboxes that float on the right. If you want to make them resizeable when not used as an infobox, please just use conditionals to do so. Ryan2845 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC):[reply]

How can I do that?--Nitsansh (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guide details the basics of conditionals. The variable "normal" is set to "1" when used on the main conference standings page, so you could use that variable and say "if normal=1, then set width to 30%, if normal does not = 1, then set width to 25px" or something along those lines. Ryan2845 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Figure Skating Competition

Hi. I noticed you changed a header in Template:Infobox Figure Skating Competition from Defending champions to Reigning champions. This changes the entire purpose of that section, which is to make known the skaters who are at the competition defending their titles. It also invalidates the parameter names and also creates an inconsistency between the template and the template documentation. Since your edits indicate a section for reigning champions is desired, I have therefore added one. Kolindigo (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On The Big 12 South

The only way that Texas doesn't win the Big 12 South is if Texas Tech beats Baylor and Oklahoma loses to Oklahoma State on Saturday (11/29). I should have cleared that up earlier. NoseNuggets (talk) 11:08 AM US EST Nov 27 2008

Hi Nitsansh Yeah, the section would be too long. The idea one week each time has crossed my mind also. About men's handball I forgot to include semifinals and others. I'm going to finish the rest soon. Thanks for info. Treki (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh

Good spot. I didn't actually mark them in red, just copied and pasted the tables from the pool stage article. Someone else has fixed it now anyway. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal: Current events/Sports

I read through the discussion, but as I saw it, it seemed to be in favour of regular season games, the last thing mention seemed to be not to remove the NFL regular season games which I would at least count in the same category as the top 3 football leagues in the world, the English Premier League, the Spanish Primera División and the Italian Serie A. So if the consensus is to have NFL games, I think the big 3 should be allowed as well? c h ¹⁰ · 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main arguement in favour of the NFL (and also American college football) regular season was that its season is short (16 games) and every round counts. In football (soccer) leagues there are 30-something rounds, and also national cups (and in England's case also league cup)and European Cups (the latter are reported starting from the group stage). From the American point of view, the European equivalent of the American professional leagues are the European Champions League (football), Euroleague (Basketball) etc, not the domestic leagues for the various countries. The same goes for other continents - Copa Libertadores in South America, Champions League of CONCACAF, Asia, Africa and Oceania are all in, but domestic competitions out... I recently added final matches like the recent English League Cup final, Australian Grand Final, and several cup finals in European basketball. Also the 3-teams play off in Argentina last year was reported. When its a match that decides the title winner, it's ok... but every league match means hundreds of matches in a year...

But if you want to discuss it further, go ahead... --Nitsansh (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the European POV the NFL is the equivalent of the domestic leagues, because it is a domestic league. 16 games for 32 teams in 17 week is about the same ratio per week as 38 games (where you could say every round counts for more than in the NFL because you can go do a Playoff and win the title even if you're not even in top10) for 20 teams in 9/10 months. And every regular season in the NFL is about 260 games, while a 20 team league is about 380... and that's over 9/10 months... And I'm not saying every league, I'm saying the Big 3, which arguably are bigger worldwide than the NFL c h ¹⁰ · 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]