User talk:Mn1548

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ss112 01:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: "Spectrum (Say My Name)", the remix, is the version which went number 1 not the album version called "Spectrum".^[1][2] And I think you'll find Calvin Harris was officially credited on the remix,^[3] which is why "Spectrum (Say My Name)" was originally on that list. I made the edit because I noticed it had been removed. Mn1548 (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The list did not previously state Calvin Harris had another number one with "Spectrum (Say My Name)" before you added it. Also, the Official Charts article you just cited doesn't actually say or credit Calvin Harris as a lead or featured artist. Nor does the cover art of the remix; nor does the article Spectrum (Say My Name). They just state that he remixed it. Where do we draw the line? Did Calvin also have another number one because he produced "I Will Never Let You Down" by Rita Ora, which went to number one? Also, Spotify was nowhere near as relevant as it is now in 2012 when that song went to number one, so I hardly see how what they choose to credit it as now matters. Spotify doesn't decide everything. What matters is that is not how the Official Charts Company credits it—according to them and all other media I've seen reporting on it, Calvin has had eight number ones on which he is credited according to the OCC. Ss112 10:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: The list did previously state it as a number 1. That's how I realised it was missing. Spotify/Apple Music etc uses official credits for songs as I believe you pointed out previous regarding Beyoncé and Hymn for the Weekend. A production, while technically would count as being a number 1, we would not included as there are no official credits. A remix on the other hand is completely different as it is a different version of the original songs which in this case is quite important as the remix performed considerably better than the original. Finally the main article does credit the Calvin Harris remix as number 1 - read it "Spectrum (Say My Name)". Mn1548 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you added it to Harris' number ones on that list in 2017 and it was rightfully removed after that by another editor. Dude, I did read Spectrum (Say My Name), and you don't seem to know what I'm referring to: the infobox and the cover art contained on that article do not credit Calvin Harris as a lead or featured artist. The cover art does not say "Florence and the Machine & Calvin Harris" or even "featuring Calvin Harris". Linking me directly to the section titled "Calvin Harris remix" is unnecessary because that section doesn't really say anything different. Calvin is not credited by the Official Charts Company, who have specifically stated he's had eight number ones in the 2010s decade and ten overall here. Remixers are not always given lead or featured credit on the songs they remix. I'm done arguing with you, so if you tag or reply to me again, you're really wasting your time because you won't be getting another from me. Ss112 20:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Marcus Rashford. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zac Efron discography 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/Zac Efron discography 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. — Philip J Fry talk 02:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Will Grigg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Sharpe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I've started a discussion at Talk:Scott McTominay regarding the "youth career" issue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cribinau into St Cwyfan's Church, Llangwyfan. 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) 00:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Diannaa: OK, thankyou for the heads up. I wasn't aware of this. I shall remember for next time. Mn1548 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Avicii, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Vargas & Lagola are associated acts of Avicii. May I also point out that no acts on that list are sourced and neither is that section of the infobox sourced for the vast majority of other artists. Correct me if I'm wrong ut the definition of "associate act" that Wikipedia uses is a minimum of two or more collaboration (at least that's what it seems to be based of other edits of the same natute). By that definition the information I added to the Infobox is already sourced throughout the article and does not need to be resorced in the infobox as no other artist is. Mn1548 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

"Correct me if I'm wrong"...I already did by reverting your edit and leaving a caution on your talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Well then...Please do the next logical thing and explain why I'm wrong and what constitutes an "associate act" so this thing doesn't happen again. Mn1548 (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Any material added to an article that "is likely to be challenged" needs to include an inline citation, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thats still not you answering the question I asked of "What is an associated act?" So seen as you're unable to let's do this properly. Template:Infobox musical artist states that an associated act should follow on of four criteria. One of which:

Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

Such times Vargas & Lagola have collaborated with Avicii include:

• You Make Me
• Hey Brother
• Waiting for Love
• Friend of Mine
• Without You
• Peace of Mind
• Tough Love
• Excuse Me Mr. Sir

If this doesn't class as "collaborated on multiple occasions" then I don't know what does. Information is generally not sourced in infoboxs as it is a summary of the main article where such information is already sourced. Now do I need to source these here and now or are you able to click the links and see that the collaborations have been sourced on their respective pages and are also sourced on the main page as well! Mn1548 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Phil Neville. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Please check the edit history and you will find that it is indeed sourced. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

It should be sourced in the article itself. What use to our readers is a link when it's hidden away in an edit summary? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well realise the mistake and move it there then. Most things in the infobox aren't sourced like his position as England manager just to give an example. Putting the source in the edit summary is common practice for small infobox changes so please check the edit summary of an edit before you blindly revert it. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

That content is already sourced in the prose. Please ensure that you cite content properly in future if you don't want to be "blindly" reverted. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gee Cross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manchester United Treble Reunion 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/Manchester United Treble Reunion 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. – PeeJay 21:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Wigan Warriors season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craven Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Creamfields, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Pogba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruno Fernandes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

How much are you going to expand on these articles other than copying and pasting information from the parent article? This looks more like creating articles for the sake of it rather than providing a good experience for the reader who can no not read for example the complete account of the 2015 Challenge Cup without having to click through to another page? Also by copying and pasting as you have you are not complying with WP:COPYWITHIN and providing attribution as required of the contributions you have copied. Nthep (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep: The problem is there is a broken sequence of pages with only the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2019 final pages existing. My plan was to link 2009 to 2019 together with a basic overview and expand later. All pages should ideally look like 2009 but 2019 would be the minimum. Mn1548 (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

OK but look at this the other way round. How much information is there in 2019 Challenge Cup Final that doesn't already exist in 2019 Challenge Cup? From the look of it not much, in fact three short paragraphs of uncited text. Much better, imo would be to merge that content into 2019 Challenge Cup unless the intention is to provide an article in the detail of e.g. 2009 Challenge Cup Final. WP:SIZESPLIT suggests that for articles that our Challenge Cup articles approximate in size splitting content out is only really necessary if "the specific material within one section becomes too large" (WP:WHENSPLIT) which doesn't look to be the case with the 2007, 2008 and 2019 final articles. The 2009 final was appropriate to split off on the basis of WHENSPLIT but that is looking like the exception rather than the norm. If you're prepared to do a 2009 on any of the others than I certainly wouldn't object but to split, actually little more than copy, content from an existing article runs in the face of WP:SPLITTING and the objective of providing a good reading experience to readers.

Strangely enough this is the second discussion on a similar topic today. I am also querying separate articles for the pool games for the 2021 RLWC on the same basis. What are they going to add that couldn't be included in the overarching 2021 RLWC article. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep: OK I see your point. My original approach to this was to create a basis overview and expanded later after connecting 2009 to 2019. But from this a one at a time approach is probably best. Creating one at a higher standard than bringing them all up gradually. Mn1548 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Create a basis by all means but a) make sure you comply with WP:COPYWITHIN if you copy existing content and b) don't delete that content from the parent article until such time as it is worth summarising. So if an expansion of 2018 Challenge Cup Final starts with attributed copy from 2018 Challenge Cup ok but leave the copied content in 2018 Challenge Cup until such time as the Final article is much more expanded and then reduce the content in 2018 Challenge Cup - if necessary. It might be that the existing content is the reasonable summary of what's to be found in 2018 Final if the latter matches the 2009 Final article. There is a lack of good articles on rugby league and too many stubs/start class stuff which in many case is little more than a collection of stats about that player or season/competition. I've got one rugby league article to GA status and that took several weeks to do including all the researching. I started that in my sandbox and then merged it into the existing article when I felt there was enough to go on for it not to look half-finished. Pick an existing GA e.g. 2011 FA Cup Final and use that as a template to work from. It might be worth starting with 2009 Challenge Cup Final see if you can get that to GA status then you know the challenge for the other articles. Nthep (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nthep:OK Thanks for the help. Mn1548 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Dean Henderson, you may be blocked from editing. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Wigan Warriors season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bateman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stretford Paddock".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, The Quadruple (rugby league), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 04:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2005 Wigan Warriors season, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you need to edit the Wigan-Saints rivalry page to the version you had it at Good Friday Derby and then request that an admin properly moves the Wigan-Saints rivalry page to Good Friday Derby over the redirect as cut and paste title changes are forbidden. @Nthep: may be able to further assist, they're an admin I've seen around on the RL pages. c87d98b10 09:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to merge the articles then there probably needs to be a merge discussion first. These three articles have a chequered history and there looks to have been an undiscussed (afaik) and partial merger in 2019. Having a discussion should settle it once and for all. If they are merged then it needs to be done correctly to retain attribution and not just copying and pasting. Nthep (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2005 Wigan Warriors season".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On 15 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hull Derby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rugby league's Hull F.C. forced rugby union's Hull KR out of their home ground by paying triple the rent before the teams became part of rugby league's Hull Derby? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hull Derby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hull Derby), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

On 17 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Challenge Cup Final, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2021 Challenge Cup Final between Castleford and St Helens today will be played at a half-full Wembley Stadium? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Challenge Cup Final. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Challenge Cup Final), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thatto Heath's history is separate from Saints as the women's team has continued after the formation of the Saints womens team. I know it was a wholesale move/co-operative approach but you can't credit THC achievements prior to 2018 to St Helens. Nthep (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep: The current Thatto Heath women's side is essentially the reserve / feeder team of St Helens women (See RFL statement on the team's acquisition). Therefore anything achieved by Thatto Heath pre St Helens takeover can be accredited to them as they are the same team. Mn1548 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Debatable - that might have been the intention in 2018 but is that what has happened since? I doubt it. This isn't a simple renaming like Bradford Thunderbirds becoming Bradford Bulls where there is no dispute about the achievements carrying over, but similar to the Chorley Lynx situation, they weren't the inheritors of Blackpool Borough's heritage. Nthep (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep: From the way I read the RFL article it seems clear that St Helens Women are the continuation of Thatto Heath. The current Thatto Heath, can't claim the heritage, as it's explicitly stated that they are the reserve team. It's therefore logical to state that St Helens does inherited the heritage of the original Thatto Heath as there is no mention of Thatto Heath exiting the league and later reforming like what happened Blackpool Borough. Also please elaborate on the phrase "is that what has happened since". Mn1548 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite a hope expressed at the time there is nothing to show that since 2018 THC have acted at Saints women's reserve team. THC continue to play independently and as a 2020 article in the St Helens Star says "Saints Women took over from Thatto Heath Crusaders in taking the town's place in Super League in 2018." It's a situation analogous to the purchase of Gateshead by Hull Sharks to keep Hull's Super League status. Nthep (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

There's another aspect to this as well, reputable sources like the BBC and Sky are reporting Saints as being the first team to win the Treble. Suggesting that their definition is Cup, League Leaders Shield and Super League Grand Final, not any precursor to the WSL in women's rugby league. Thoughts? Nthep (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep: In terms of the clubs being separate, I have just seen an article on the St Helens Star saying that it is the club's first treble which would indicate separate clubs. What I would like to see in regards to this issue is an article on St Helens's or Thatto Heath's website explain the take over. In terms of the BBC stating it is the first ever women's treble I don't like. The definition of a treble in British rugby league, is League Leader and Grand Final in what ever first division league is currently running and the Challenge Cup which Thatto Heath achieved in 2016. The question is therefore is the RFL Women's Rugby League the predecessor of the RFL Women's Super League. The way both article are written suggested it was but there are no sources for it, so with out having to rewrite large parts of those articles when there aren't any sources to contradict what's already there I'd hold off on removing Thatto Heath as treble winners unless a good enough source can be found stating that the WRL was not the predecessors to the WSL and not an official top teir league for women's rugby league in the UK. Mn1548 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry I wasn't planning on removing anything to do with THCs 2016 Treble, just to start the discussion over was it first or not. I see even the RFL are saying yesterday was the first though Nthep (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep: The only thing I can assume then is that in the WRL era there was no league leaders sheild awarded as a physical trophy. It's definitely safe to say it's the first treble of the WSL era, which is probably the best phrasing to use. Mn1548 (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

sounds like the safest bet. Nthep (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Quadruple (rugby league), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Quadruple".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Championship Leaders' Shield, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll ask the question the other way round, what is notable about academy level matches or even series? I don't know if you read the recent RFC on WP:NSPORT but notability, albeit concentrating mostly on individuals rather than events, was heavily debated and that articles need to be more than statistical records. If there is more to the academy games than they took place then fine but just a list of scores?

Women's matches, not sure if victories are being counted in series or games. We could mention both but as prose not table entries. And yes it does need some context setting to show the notability.

As for colours, please see MOS:COLOR and MOS:DTAB, articles and tables should not be seas of colour as it makes it difficult for screen reading technology, let alone anyone else. I'm not totally taken with bold either, even though that was my choice and I will probably sandbox something else using the won, lost and drawn templates. Overuse of colour is a failing across lots of sports articles, and I think rugby league ones are some of the worst due to the number of navboxes in club colours we have knocking around and the preponderance of writing content in tabular form rather than prose. Nthep (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep: OK, thankyou for the clarification. Mn1548 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the move on the World Cup article. Nthep (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Championship Leaders' Shield, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2026 FIFA World Cup. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Underwater Hockey European Championships 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/Underwater Hockey European Championships 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure that 2023 Challenge Cup Finals has separate notability? An article on the men's Challenge Cup final will be as always, the women's and the 1895 cup (not even a Challenge Cup). This article is likely to just become about the men's match and a see also for the others.

The only thing notable that I see is that all three are being played on the same day but even so that's a footnote to the matches themselves, not the headline. Nthep (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nthep: TBH you're probably right with that. And honestly the whole thing could probably use a redirect to the Challenge Cup for the time being anyway. I seen on other pages when is one event stuff like this have been merged (contrary to say the FA Cup finals where they are two separate events on different days) but as you said the difference in notability between the men's and women's finals could lead to the women's final being overshadowed on that page. Maybe if the projected popularity in women's rugby occurs following the World Cup then the women's final might warrant its own pages, especially as it's now at Wembley. But the whole thing really needs a redirect at the moment now I'm thinking about it. Mn1548 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

About your edit edit adding st Helen’s and Bradford to the league leaders column for 1996 and 1997. Since there was no grand final those years they don’t need to be in the league leaders column as they were the champions. Post 1998 champions and league leaders are different achievements and not necessary for 96-97 Northern Wonder (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Northern Wonder: St Helens and Bradford were still league leaders that year. Just because league leaders and champions were the same thing doesn't discount them from being league leaders. Also putting not applicable in that column is factual incorrect as teams did finish first in regular season. Just because there was no playoffs doesn't remove league leaders as being such. Mn1548 (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Mn1548 (talk) The league leaders column is for teams who won the league leaders shield though. It’s a bit confusing having saints and Bradford in both columns when there was no league leaders shield, there was just champions and runners up

@Northern Wonder: Surely the note explains that though, anyway its a lot less ambiguous now you've changed that column from "League Leaders" to "League Leaders' Shield" and that should make it clearer for people who haven't read the note. Mn1548 (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. Thank you for creating Leeds Rhinos–Wigan Warriors rivalry. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Anfield was removed from the schedule a whole year ago and replaced by the DW Stadium. Liverpool will no longer open the Women's tournament which has now gone to Leeds.

I have heavily improved the venues sections across all four RLWC 2021 articles in the last 24 hours. Given the short period of time I imagine there's a chance that you may have not noticed the edits but that section is (imo) to a really good standard that is consistent and relevant in its information to each tournament (and not just stadiums but training bases and etc.) I welcome a second pair of eyes and scrutiny over these edits but twice now you have done so citing inaccuracies in your summaries (though done in good faith). Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary I have now added bracketed information specifying the venues of the women's and wheelchair tournaments in the venue section (Special:diff/1117782519) with the rest already implied in that paragraph. A full read of the current page would not leave any unambiguity on this paticular issue without even the need to visit the individual articles.

In your edit summary you imply that there are missing capacities plural but I can only find this for English Institute of Sport. This was intentionally left (hence the dash) as the complex has no set capacity and will depend on the room they use (which will vary). I removed the needs fixing tag as I can not find any errors with that section. If you spot something specifically that you can not fix, please let me know and I will see if I can. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@JamesLewisBedford01: My appologies, I was aware that Anfield was no longer being used in the men's tournament but I thought it was still being used for the women's opener. Yeah, it's a bit hard keeping track of what's going on with these pages at the moment and exactly what should be on what page with the 2021 world cup now taking a different format in presentation to previous world cups. Sorry again. Mn1548 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it makes sense that you might have thought it was still being used in the women's tournament as that is what it had said as late as a 20 October version before I recently edited it (which is probably hard to find as there were lots of edits in the edit history).

On the Opening Ceremony section, I left that in the men's tournament in the end as in fairness there is not really any reliable sources saying it won't happen in the other tournaments as much as there isn't any saying it will so I guess there is no point trying to change anything before the first women's game is played. You could very well be right. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@JamesLewisBedford01: Cheers, I've also altered the venues table a bit, just ordering them a but better. Thanks again. Mn1548 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to split Cardiff Arms Park - To split or not to split. There are two options which have been agreed. SethWhales ^talk 16:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Would 14 days from 17 November be an acceptable time to complete the discussions, i.e. 1 December? Let me know if you disagree. SethWhales ^talk 17:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Seth Whales: No that seems quite acceptable to me. Mn1548 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article Manchester Central Convention Complex. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, South American Rugby League Championship, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wheelchair rugby league, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gillingham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Southsea, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for creating 2023 Women's Challenge Cup. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought that having the teams split into separate maps, it would be easier to see them. But I'll leave it at it is now to avoid any arguments etc :)

L1amw90 22:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@L1amw90: Yeah I get that, it just results in too many maps and is inconsistent with all other SL pages. Mn1548 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Underwater hockey in Great Britain. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Hopefully you will write more article, have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The article 2020 National Conference League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable enough for a stand alone article. It should be incorporated into the main article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. BostonMensa (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The article 2021 National Conference League has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reason for stand alone article. Merge into main article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. BostonMensa (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 National Conference League 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/2019 National Conference League 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 until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, 2016 National Conference League, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, 2015 National Conference League, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 National Conference League 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/2015 National Conference League 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 until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Varsity team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varsity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've got concerns that moving the articles from 2025 to 2026 is not the best way to go about things. I've posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#2026 world cups as to why. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerns noted. I support your proposal on the wikiproject but as mentioned it does need to be done with proper linking between the two. Mn1548 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The article 2026 Women's Rugby League World Cup qualification has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All information here now redundant due to the tournament rescheduling

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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 history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Why does nobody else bother about what Stadium names go on what pages? Why does it only bother you... One admin who also edits these pages never bothers me, so I don't get why it bothers you. I've never had any complaints from anyone except you... So why does it matter what names go on here..? And no, I'm not causing an argument... L1amw90 20:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@L1amw90: It matters because that is the policy and consensus in place on Wikipedia.

The fact that I have presented these to you and have politely ask you to follow them on mutiple previous occasions, and every time you have not bothered to reply to me and instead go back a re revert my edits often breaking tables and removing valid content and references in the process. Of course I have got frustrated.

You have never attempted to have a conductive conversation on this topic only do disruptive edits to pages for who knows what reason. This is your first attempt of having a conversation about this with me and you question was essentially "why does following Wikipedia policy and editor concensus matter?" If that is your view please stop editing.

Also you said "I've never had any complaints from anyone except you". I don't know if you ment that in relation to the stadium names or in general, but on your talk page, the last 50 edits (25 really because you delete everything) you have 3 complaints.

Also you said "every time I edit something, you immediately jump in my talk page". The last time I was on your talk page, looking at the edit history, we had a constructive discussion on formatting the Women's Super League season pages. So why you are seemingly incapable of having a constructive conversation on this topic is beyond me.

As editors we should be following policy and we have discussions if we want to change them. The concensus, as previously sent to you, is that we DO NOT use sponsored names where it can be avoided. So please, do not change the names of stadium in text, if they were to be refered to that way on Wikipedia, then their article would be called that name. Mn1548 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of British and Irish sporting systems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ole Gunnar Solskjær, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forward.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I've undone your edit for the women's playoffs etc, as I didn't think it made any sense. I thought it would be better to just use the structure they did for last season? I mean, if you want to re add it then fair enough, I just thought it would be easier for people to understand etc :). L1amw90 13:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fair, will look to stucture similar to men's. Mn1548 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The article 150th Anniversary Heritage Match has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not convinced a friendly match merits its own article just because it's marking an anniversary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 150th Anniversary Heritage Match 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/150th Anniversary Heritage Match 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 until the discussion has finished.

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Came on wikipedia to do the merge myself and found it already been done. Great work new page is looking good!

EDIT: Sorry wasn't signed in when I posted that! Mollsmolyneux (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem, glad you like it. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of British and Irish sporting systems".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to List of British rugby league league leaders. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The redirect The Ashes (rugby league); 2023– has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15 § The Ashes (rugby league); 2023– until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't do this any more. 2023 Rugby League European Championships wasn't the first time people have had to sort these out. If you don't know how to use the HELP:MOVE function then ask someone to do it for you. Nthep (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You've done another one here on Elite One Championship 2023–2024. Looks like a cut-and-paste from 2023–24 French Rugby League season, which additionally you have put a redirect into without making it a redirect. Redirects don't have content - you can't leave a load of content on a redirect page. I've tried to tidy it up by replacing the redirect with a link. You don't fully seem to understand a lot of how to move pages, how redirects work and how the MOS works - I'm happy if you want to check with me first before moving articles or putting in redirects, always willing to help. --Bcp67 (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

In this instance I don't see how I can move one page into three. From my understanding of the move function it just moves one page to another of a different name. Mn1548 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The article you need to read then is WP:SPLITTING. The important issue overall is history attribution. If content has been put into article "A" by a series of edits, and then copied to article "B", the attribution has to be referred to like this: "Contents WP:SPLIT from Source article name; please see its history for attribution." And for copy-and-paste please read WP:HISTMERGE and understand about attribution. Bcp67 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks. Mn1548 (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. Thank you for your work on List of rugby league tours. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work, I'm marking as reviewed. Don't agree with all of the redlinking (implying that those should automatically have separate articles) but that's a different topic.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Elite One Championship 2023–2024, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Rugby League World Cup 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/2025 Rugby League World Cup 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 until the discussion has finished.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548,

Thank you for creating 2026 Women's Rugby League World Cup qualification.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi Mn1548. The new article relies solely on two references so far - would it be possible to include additional WP:RS sourcing, especially secondary sources. I would also recommend inclusion in additional appropriate categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2024 Challenge Cup Final, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mn1548!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Halifax Panthers Wheelchair. Bastun, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, Mn1548, excellent start on your new article. I would suggest including it in appropriate Wikiprojects.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bastun}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mn1548,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Elite One Championship 2023–2024 for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Grahaml35 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeds Rhinos–Wakefield Trinity rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to British Sub-Aqua Club has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548,

Please do not mass-nominate articles for deletion discussions. While it may take you minutes to create an AFD page, participants in AFD discussions can spend hours looking for sources. This is not fair to the limited number of editors who participate in AFDs. Please pace yourself and limit your nominations to something like 5 per day. Otherwise what will happen is that all of these discussions will have few or no participants and keep getting relisted because the number of nominated articles is overwhelming.

You also didn't for form your AFD nominations correctly and a bot had to fix each one for you. Please read WP:AFD instructions carefully and follow them to the letter so that the article is tagged, the article creator is notified, a discussion page has been created and the discussion has been posted to the daily AFD log page. This process is made much easier if you would use WP:TWINKLE which will take care of the entire process for you. Consider using it in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not consider that. It was my understanding that articles only got deleted following a strong concensus, and the AfD discussion wasn't time constrained. I will have a look a twinkle for the future. Thankyou. Mn1548 (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midlands Rugby League Premier Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nottingham Outlaws.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rob Burrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St James Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548,

AFDs like this are very confusing for other editors. You have your nomination statement (which is a Delete vote), then a second Delete vote which should be struck and then you turn around and argue for a Keep and Rename. Your stance is fluctuating and changing. What you need to do is STRIKE any earlier opinions that don't reflect your current opinion, do not "vote" more than once, ever, and if you change your mind about an AFD nomination, make a formal withdrawal but stating this withdrawal right underneath your original nomination statement. But first of all, think through your nominations carefully before making them. You should have a clear enough opinion about whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted that your opinion doesn't change over the course of a week for apparently no reason. If you are unsure about an article, then don't make a deletion nomination.

There are no bonus points for nominating lots of articles for deletion, if an article can be improved through editing or better sourcing, then spend time on that rather than nominating an article for deletion. If articles you nominate for deletion are being closed as Keep then maybe you should reflect on whether your standards are too high or you haven't done sufficient BEFORE to unearth quality sources. I guess I'm arguing for you to slow down, only vote once in an AFD and handle your nominations more thoughtfully. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liz:, thankyou for this message. While I understand the points made in this message, I believe here that the AfDs were somewhat needed in this particular case. The rugby league WikiProject seems to get very little discussion on talk pages in which I have approached the subject of UK amature rugby league in the past with no or no meaningful outcome. Sources are hard to find on the subject and while officials pages exist, the fact the some of the leagues I've AfDed have two sometimes even three articles on what is practically the same subject making it hard to determine what should be kept and what should go. Plus how poorly some of them are written and how out of date they are doesn't help either, hence why I thought is was necessary to AfD them all based on WP:TNT. In regards to the option changes, it's because of editors finding appropriate sources which I have been unable to, some articles of this series that I AfDed did get deleted because no sources could be found, and other have been cleaned up and at least now have a few sources allowing them to be more easily worked on later. Overall, I just wanted this message to explain what I've done and why I've done it here as supposed to a talk page which for more visible (for lack of a better word) articles, the talk pages would be noticed and a discussion could be had there. But thankyou for the advice on how to handle this sort of stuff in the future. Mn1548 (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shaun Wane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IRL World Rankings.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The article List of Magic Weekend results has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While the Magic Weekend is special, the results aren't. There is no statistical importance, no link between the results, no extra trophy, ... Basically WP:NOTSTATS, no indication why the results from this weekend are more noteworthy

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. Fram (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Magic Weekend results 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/List of Magic Weekend results 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on France national wheelchair rugby league team. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Rugby League European Championship results has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Italy national rugby league team results, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halifax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fiji national rugby league team results, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1992 Pacific Cup.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to List of Serbia national rugby league team results. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, do we actually need the information you added about hull kr and the viewing figures for Warrington v saints?.. just seems a bit odd having that extra bit...? – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90  (🗣️ talk to me  • ✍️ contribs) 05:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think so yes, but I do get where you're coming from that if not all matches have extra written information it can make the page look a bit odd. However, alot of pages about rugby league are critised for not having enough prose in the article, and in general as much sourced relevant information should be included so long as it is kept concise. If there is a way to reformat it to help with consistency of the article formating I'd be up for that but I don't think the information should be excluded totally. Mn1548 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Fiji national rugby league team results, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maryborough.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically.
I know posting a template like this might look bad, and I understand using cite templates might be a bit difficult on the mobile web version of Wikipedia, but you do have a bit of a track record when it comes to anything in relation to Wigan Warriors - e.g. on 2024 Wigan Warriors season. Filling out the cites with the proper citation templates, as suggested above, gives the proper attributions required and also just looks so much better than a plain URL.
Just thought I'd let you know now before the 2025 season gets underway, so thanks for your understanding (and wikitable edits in the meantime!), Hullian111 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks, this is something I've be trying to learn and put into practice, and something I do need to get better at with my editing. Thanks for the template, should hopefully help me improve on this. Mn1548 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Cyril Torres. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Gilles Clausells. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Nicolas Clausells. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on 2029 Wheelchair Rugby League World Cup. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on 2030 Men's Rugby League World Cup. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Probably too early / right now and edge case regarding wp:notability but I'm marking it as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Rugby League Under-19 European Championship. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on 2025 England Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Men's rugby league Ashes (modern series). Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mn1548. Thank you for your work on Women's rugby league Ashes. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2025 Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that message. Not sure why that draft exists as the article was accepted to mainspace in November. Mn1548 (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mn1548

Could you please explain to me this redirection. "Game of thirteen " is not synonymous with French Rugby League , actually it was a past administrative French appellation and can be regarded as pejorative nowadays. On the French wikipedia, it's an article aside from rugby league and not confused with it. Especially because people tend to still use "jeu à XIII" wrongly to refer to the code. Nowadays, if the confusion is made it's either by mistake or by denigration.

Cheers Wikitripau (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Gladly. The content of the article is already covered in the section of the article it was redirected to. The article, before redirected, was less that 2,000 characters (including references). Per WP:AS, articles of that size should be redirected if no expansion is possible. Mn1548 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mn1548. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Serbia national rugby league team results, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The article 2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article doesn't discuss a 2025 tour of the Australian women team in England? It discusses lots of other things, and a match in Vegas, which is not in England...

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. Fram (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England 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/2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to 2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because of the AfD decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Jillaroo tour of England 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/2025 Jillaroo tour of England 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 until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect 2025 England Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 11 § 2025 England Lions and Lionesses tour of Australia until a consensus is reached. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article O'Loughlin Farrell family, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Loughlin Farrell family until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wales Rugby League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Berry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anna Davies (rugby league), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Brimson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mn1548, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mn1548, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)