User talk:HawkAussie/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:HawkAussie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

The eighth archived talk page that I have had from August 2019-20.

Your GA nomination of Jamaica national football team

The article Jamaica national football team you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jamaica national football team for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Please remove transport united fc squad as outdated per snowflake, like he moved others in bhutan User:93.143.87.231

@93.143.87.231: I'm sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about here. HawkAussie (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi HawkAussie, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your bot sucks

Your bot keeps trying to claim that an edit I made was "vandalism", which is total nonsense. Something is wrong with your bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.161.98 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It's because you did vandalise that page. Enough said. HawkAussie (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netherlands national football team

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Netherlands national football team you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Netherlands national football team

The article Netherlands national football team you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Netherlands national football team for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Archiving talk

Yes, please do, it's something I had planned to learn how to do but never got round to it. Crowsus (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

How is Australia?

Does being a Wikipedia editor give you a sense of gratitude or fulfillment you can't find anywhere else? Am just curious, I ask because I love to know how people think and also because you have been an editor for 7 years. With all that time you have spent on Wikipedia editing for free you could have actually done something that would be making you money now or have made you money.(my opinion but not relevant) Let me introduce myself, I am Canadian born Nigerian and I am in love with Nigeria that is why I started editing few months ago.(also not relevant) I mainly only care about anything that is Nigerian sports related. I am not a disruptive editor even though I was blocked once due to the fact that I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia then.( I was very new and didn't even know how to navigate the site). About the issue of the Nigerian under-20 women's page everyone that reverted my edit clearly didn't take a look at what they were reverting before they did so, they automatically thought I was being disruptive. The most annoying part is that I posted on everyone that reverted my edits talk page and to my surprise, nobody responded. I was dying to have a conversation with them without getting in an editing war or being disruptive so to say. My main Issue with the particular page and all the other pages aside from the graphics was removing the write up of the introduction section Its primary role is the development of players in preparation for the senior women's national team. The team competes in a variety of competitions, including the biennial FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women , which is the top competitions for this age group. and also removing the African U-20 Cup of Nations for Women from the tournament record. This showed me that the people that reverted my edits including you clearly didn't take a look at the information they were reverting because they are not in any way useless. The other issue was changing  Nigeria to just Nigeria. After a third party supported the change I personally went on all the pages and changed it. Back to the issue of graphics, I personally didn't think it was a big deal because it is a common thing found on Africa's national football team pages and is also used on many nation team basketball pages. I think the main purpose it serves is in a way make the page more colorful and inviting to read. What is your reason for removing it? Please give me an answer I want to know how including it on the page is disruptive? Does it also have to be removed according to a Wikipedia policy or you're just doing it just because you think it should't be there the same way I think it should? I know for a fact, unless its a policy we both don't have the right to choose if it should be or be removed without having a census or opinions from other editors. Will you remove the graphics from basketball teams pages like United States men's national basketball team then? I need an answer. Lastly I saw you removed the Olympic medal record from the page of the Nigeria national football team, I don't have a problem with it but will you also remove that of Mexico national football team and Argentina national football team to make it fear. About me blanking my talk page, I wasn't hiding anything it is just something I have always done and other editors do it too and blanking out the talk page was done purposely to get you attention which I did because I know you were so eager to get me blocked. Why haven't I gotten a rely from you yet?13:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)OmoYoruba45 (talk)

First, use paragraphs as people hate big blobs of text filling their screen. To answer the first question, I will not disclose that information as it's private information. Secondly, the only edits that I did was remove the graphics as I wanted those pages to keep it consist with the WP:MOS that has been set for the football pages so bringing in basketball isn't a valuable subject as it's part of a different topic.

That final section, is mainly because the editors maybe archive their talk page so not to make it too massive on their talk page. Heck, I do it, every year to have a nice clean state but before that I archive that talk page because if their is something I need that was in the archive, I can actually look for it. HawkAussie (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, thanks for also giving me a sort of an answer on the graphic issue because none of the others editors were interested in giving me a reason on why removing the harmless graphics is better for the page, which made me think they were being disruptive and they probably thought the same way about me when I reverted their edit. On your reply, I frankly do not buy your excuse because, I don't think there is a rule on Wikipedia that says all similar pages(football pages) must be made to look the same and if so, is there a group of editors that make's sure the rule of keeping it consist with the WP:MOS that has been set for the football is followed by all the football pages? Because I see that there are a lot of pages that are excluded from that "rule" for example United States men's national soccer team, Egypt national football team, Canada women's national soccer team to name a few ( I can name a lot more). I still strongly think removing the graphics was very unnecessary, especially when your so called "rule" of consistency is not followed by many other similar pages.

Lastly I see that you ignored my question on removing the Olympic medal record from the page of the Nigeria national football team, and leaving that of Mexico national football team and Argentina national football team. Mexico won in 2012 and Argentina won in 2004, 2008 and silver in 1996. Again you and the other editors, I have talked to seem not to practice what you preach. Anytime I bring up Mexico and Argentine the question always get ignored. Please tell me do they get a pass from your consistency rule?OmoYoruba45 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer that period, that is not the first goal of most of the footballers editors right now as they are focusing on updating the club side of football, not the national side of football as that is the bigger fish of the two. So of course some pages are going be left out. HawkAussie (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Portugal national youth football team

User:Nzol12 removed you speedy deletion request and then filled the page with copied information from other articles without giving credit. SLBedit (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I can see that as a quick look at the other youth teams and some of those pages are essentically disambig pages with other section. HawkAussie (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh national wonen's under 17 football team.

Hi sir I need help of your.I have removed of Bangladesh national womens under 17 football team article.Please help me to add.I have tried but I could not able. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR Alamgir Khan (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Tohura Khatun

Tohura is a Bangladeshi women footballer who is representing our country in different age level tournament of Asian Football Confederation. Soon she will also feature in women's national team, that's why I suggest not to delete her page. Saiful Islam Jitu

@Saiful Islam Jitu: Just because she competes in the age level tournaments doesn't mean she is eligible to have an article on Wikipedia. As I said in the Afd, the player fails WP:NFOOTY as she hasn't played in a tier one senior match as of yet. If she does play in the senior team in the future, then the player would be fine but for now it fails WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Tohura played for senior team also! She was in Bangladesh squad of this year's 2019 SAFF Women's Championship but scored no goals.[1] Saiful Islam Jitu

@Saiful Islam Jitu: Firstly, sign your posts after you say something, that can easilly be done using ~~~~. But to answer that other question, did she even play the competition because she isn't then technecially she would still fail it. HawkAussie (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Yes she played but scored no goals.[2]Saiful Islam Jitu (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Saiful Islam Jitu: Well why not update that page to state that she played in a senior match before putting that evidence in the Afd. Because at this rate, it might get deleted. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh national under 20 football team.

Hi sir I did removed page of Bangladesh national under 20 team.I am sorry about that.Can you help me again thats you did 5 days ago to add Bangladesh national womens under 17 football team.Plz sir.Add the team details? SR Alamgir Khan

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Typhoon Faxai (2019), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tateyama (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) 07:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to HawkAussie for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Admin Hopefuls Cleanup

Hi, I noticed edit and it made me curious. The bot will undo it the next time the bot runs unless the users you removed are removed from Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. For example, user:AHLU is in the category because this user added the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} template to their Userboxes subpage (which still exists). One way or another, all the users you removed are in the category and will be readded to the page by the bot unless they're removed from the category. The next time the bot runs is Sunday morning (US time). I don't have time at the moment to do this, but one of us should before Sunday. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that message @Rick Block:, I will remove that particular template from the editors that are banned today so the bot won't be able to pick up on that. HawkAussie (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Rick Block (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's what the bot did this morning. I haven't looked at the entire list, but at least user:AHLU was re-added. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rick Block: I just had a look and seems like most of the edits went through barring a few of them with most of those that got re-added being people who got banned by sock puppeting which completely removed their profile. That and the fact that it seems like those pages were in the [[User:[username goes here]/userboxes]] which is why it got picked back up. HawkAussie (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 Alloa Athletic season moved

Hi,

  I was just wondering why the page 2019-20 Alloa Athletic season has been moved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LC1829 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC) 

@LC1829: I just moved it because of the WP:MOS as most of the seasonal articles have the seasonal page as – instead of -. HawkAussie (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:HawkAussie, i didn't understand that's all. 15:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LC1829 (talk • contribs)

@LC1829: That is fine, have a good day. HawkAussie (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2019

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Eurovision Song Contest 2019 has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

If you check the article's edit history you will see where I "hid" either irrelevant or repetitive material. I just thought I should draw this to your attention. It is a very long article so anything that can be done to shorten it is not a bad idea.

In the Bidding Phase section the table there includes the ability to sort the "Notes" section. I question the need to sort the table at all, but at the very least I think the sorting ability for the "Notes" section should be removed.

Best of luck with your GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you for doing the GOCE and I will go through the page and correct those little sections before putting it up for GA. HawkAussie (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Beach_Soccer_Championship#Overall_Standings

hi please review again about your update for correct and make true mistakes. two country with 23th? Kyrgyzstan 1 3 0 0 0 3 6 26 -20 0 23 Philippines

probably exist other mistakes. so can you check for one time more for reform them? thank you so much.Evesisabma (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evesisabma: If you saw that little mistake than what is stopping you from doing that edit as it's possible that you could edit it with that page not being protected. Also welcome to Wikipedia. HawkAussie (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for 2019 Rugby World Cup Final

On 2 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2019 Rugby World Cup Final, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that today's 2019 Rugby World Cup Final between England and South Africa is a rematch of the 2007 final? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Rugby World Cup Final. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2019 Rugby World Cup Final), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

valereee (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving to draft space

Hello, HawkAussie,

When you move an article to draft space, please do not leave a redirect. For each move with a redirect from main space, an admin has to follow up and delete it under CSD R2 grounds. It would just save some time to not have a redirect in the first place rather than having admin delete them soon after the move. There shouldn't be redirects from the main space of the project to any other space (draft space, user space, Wikipedia space, etc.). I think it just involves unchecking a box when you do the move. Thank you! Liz ^Read! Talk! 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Hey, the issue with that is the fact that their is no way to not have an redirect when moving it from the main article space to the draft. When I click on move page it's specially says (The old title will become a redirect page to the new title.) HawkAussie (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy request

I note you requested speedy deletion here. That's not promotional. Literally tens of thousands of users include off-wiki contact information. In this case, I've removed the contact information because it's not clear what venue the user is using, and have added a welcome message. I hope you'll find this helpful in refining your tagging technique. Risker (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 Liga 2

Hi, so you decide to vote for keeping the page HawkAussie? You said you vote for redirect. Wira rhea (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wira rhea: I was thinking that but wondered if I could possibly improve it enough to possibly move it a keep as we already have some of the information of who stayed in the second division. But it's probably not going to be enough to be worthy of actually keep in it's current state. HawkAussie (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I had the sandbox for 2020 Liga 2. I always had the next season of Indonesian leagues in my sandbox. Actually, I'll put it later. Wira rhea (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yamil Silva deletion - WP:BEFORE?

Hi, HawkAussie! Unless I am missing somemthing (entirely possible :D) Yamil Silva does actually satisfy NFOOTY, a quick check of Soccerway, BDFA and/or the article itself does show this, with their career ongoing at a young age (per BDFA). I have noticed you have missed things when nominating/requesting articles for deletion a decent amount of times before, please be careful in the future. Of course, you will/can re-nominate on the basis of GNG - given there's potentially (haven't check myself, yet) an argument there. Thanks, and Merry Christmas! R96Skinner (talk) 15:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@R96Skinner: May I ask what I have been doing all this wrong all this time as it hasn't super clear in the deletions votes or in this. HawkAussie (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I was referring to WP:BEFORE, a few times (not everytime, of course) you have claimed a NFOOTY fail when it has actually been satisfied; which is dangerous when proposing deletion via PROD, given there won't be a discussion. Perhaps not as much recently, I haven't been as active across recent weeks as I was a number of months ago, but others had/have mentioned it in a few AfDs; which usually get deleted due to GNG but it's obviously important to have an accurate discussion about an article, so editors don't misvote based on something that isn't true - that's what I was questioning, not your overall mass AfD noms. :) R96Skinner (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok that does make sense. HawkAussie (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

1975 Cricket World Cup

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 1975 Cricket World Cup has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GA nomination.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 Cricket World Cup

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2019 Cricket World Cup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ianblair23 -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Awards for 2019 Cricket World Cup

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring 2019 Cricket World Cup (estimated annual readership: 8,500,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

		The Deletion to Quality Award
		For your contributions to bring 2019 Cricket World Cup (prior candidate for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Cricket World Cup) to Good Article status, I hereby present you The Deletion to Quality Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Leftoverture

Not constructive, yes, but you have to admit, it was funny. Have a good one! 216.158.244.199 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1975 Cricket World Cup

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1975 Cricket World Cup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1975 Cricket World Cup

The article 1975 Cricket World Cup you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1975 Cricket World Cup for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2019 Cricket World Cup

The article 2019 Cricket World Cup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2019 Cricket World Cup for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ianblair23 -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, nice work! Lugnuts ^Fire Walk with Me 12:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi HawkAussie, again great work on the article. It would be great to see appear on the Main Page as a DYK. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ianblair23: My question what should be worthy of a WP:DYK for this article as I initally thought of it being the only super over in ODI history but that is more likely go to the final of the 2019 Cricket World Cup instead of the main article. But I don't know what else could go there, I will probably think of one but it's getting late and I need some sleep. HawkAussie (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi HawkAussie, just to close this out, unfortunately this article is not eligible to be nominated for DYK as it fails rule 1(d) as it appeared as a bolded item on ITN on 16 July 2019 – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough on that. HawkAussie (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"2019 Pan American Games basketball convenience template navbox" template

Last year, you created or modified many templates related to the Basketball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's 3x3 tournament and the woman's tournament. You added {{2019 Pan American Games basketball convenience template navbox}} to these templates in the "noinclude" section. Please consider creating Template:2019 Pan American Games basketball convenience template navbox or removing it from the templates that use it. If you are busy with other things and don't mind me removing them, let me know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: The main reason that I had those templates there was initially have it as convenience template to match the Olympic Games style of being able to have all of the templates in one place. But it wasn't created and was left there as an annoying red link for those particular templates. I have go ahead and removed them from those templates until such time that its actually created and be brought back. HawkAussie (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Serie A position by round

Hi,

I would like to know what is the point of deleting the positions by round? You talk about a poll, which I can't find, tbh, and even if the poll exists, it seems to me that YOU decided to revert the table because YOU decided it's irrelevant, which a lot of people, me included, find relevant and I beg to differ with what you think. Until proven otherwise, the table will stay there because I disagree with deleting it. Anyway, your feeble argumentation doesn't justify deleting the table. I will stick to my guns and if you don't agree, well we'll have to go for a 3O. But please, stop reverting because it will end up in an edit war. RafaelS1979 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@RafaelS1979: I removed it as the vote has been archived which is here and with that vote it was 11-10 in favour of removing the vote. This is just not my issue that it was irrelevant as you can see. By following the vote, I have slowly gone ahead and removed those position by tables. Then their is the fact that those two references only show the latest tables and don't have past tables from those particular match days. HawkAussie (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Should I start deleting .............

1977 Women's Junior World Handball Championship, 1979 Women's Junior World Handball Championship etc because:

• You don't use available modules, but create your own tables which, worst of all, are full with deprecated tags.
• For dates you only use the year of the event when full dates are available if you search well.
• For locations you only use a country when cities are available if you search well.
• For results you only use final scores when half time scores are available if you search well. In sanme cases match top scorers are even available.
• As IHF reference you use an archieved document which doesn't only contain info about the specific event but all WC events, when non archieved archieved documents are available for each individual event.
• Besides 2 general references, no other references are mentioned.

I really don't understand how you can create these pages as is, when you use about any excuse to delete info from pages created/maintained by orhers without any discussion prior to doing so. But don't worry, I won't start deleting just like that. I respect your effort to contribute. --Sb008 (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Under what circumstances do you see deprecated tags because I don't see any. Also with those searches, their isn't many sources for those earlier junior World Championships so I am limited in what references to look for so to say that I can't create those pages 'as is' is a understatement. HawkAussie (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't see them or you don't know what they're?

See https://www.tutorialspoint.com/html/html_deprecated_tags.htm. So style="width: 180px;" instead of width="180", style="background-color: #CCFFCC;" instead of bgcolor=#CCFFCC and style="text-align: left;" instead of align="left". But why not use Module:Sports table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) anyway?

Just 1 example, if we take 1977, only the 1st day (friday 30 september). Group A: (all matches in Ploiești) USR-CGO: 23-14 (13-7), NED-CZE: 12-16 (7-12), Group B: (all matches in Bucharest ) FRA-ROU: 6-21 (2-12), POL-FRG 16-16 (9-9), Group C: (all matches in Bucharest ) AUT-HUN: 5-20 (2-6), Group D: (all matches in Brașov) DDR-DEN: 16-13 (10-4). There're more references then you know, you just need to know how to find them. --Sb008 (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1975 Cricket World Cup

The article 1975 Cricket World Cup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1975 Cricket World Cup for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Lebanon national football team

Hi, I was looking to prepare the page for a FAC, and I was reading through the peer review comments. You seem to mention the fact that the Competitive record section doesn't have enough prose. Is your concern towards the actual lack of prose, or the fact that the tables are not sourced? Basically, if I sourced the individual years in the tables would it be good to go for a FAC, or is prose really needed? Also, do you think it's necessary to reduce the History section, the same way Belgium national football team and Peru national football team have done? What are your thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi

Rorzay (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 2019

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 2019 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 2019

The article Eurovision Song Contest 2019 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

POCUS

And exactly what is wrong with having a {{redirect-distinguish}} for the incoming redirect pocus ? -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@65.94.170.207: Because it's mainly for ultrasound and it's not the first thing when I think of pocus. HawkAussie (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not the article, it's an incoming redirect to the article, which is what needs the hatnote, and why the template {{redirect-distinguish}} exists. Just like other articles with incoming redirects that could mean something else. "Pocus" redirects to the ultrasound article, and that needs handling. Unless you are suggesting that "POCUS" does not primarily refer to ultrasound, in which case, we can repoint it somewhere else. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Look it came up orange on the recent changes tag and I thought it was vandalism ok so if it was a mis-understanding then HawkAussie (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Then I'll be reimplementing the edit. Thanks. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Merging

If you are merging content from one Wikipedia page to another, don't forget that you need to provide attribution, see WP:Merging. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thanks for the GOCE, one question though and that is why did you change the location of where that news article was created as I thought the place section was where it was based. For example in the Australia section, the first match was played in Honiara instead of Sydney as you have placed it now. HawkAussie (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: I "fixed" the citations because [location] usually refers to the place where the publication is located/published. After your query I checked ProveIt, WP's citation tool and discovered there is a field for where the article was written. I have never come across this before. If this field is used this is how the citation should appear in the article. (Click edit on this section and you can see how ProveIt presents the fields.) I will certainly go back and fix the citations if you wish. Just let me know.

Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

[3]

@Twofingered Typist: To be honest I thought "location" was where the story came from, not the place where the work was based of. Well you learn something new. HawkAussie (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: You can certainly have both if you want. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: I think I will use the publication-place part of the reference for those locations as the location is already in the work section. HawkAussie (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kristy Stratton class

Hi HawkAussie, In this edit you down-classed Stratton from B to Start. I tried to give the class based on the quality scale explanation (I have no experience with this), and it seems to me the article fulfils the 6 B-class criteria, or at a minimum the C-class criteria. Could you explain what you believe is missing and how this article could be upgraded to B or C? --SuperJew (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: The main reason for dropping it down to Start class for now is just simply not quite enough prose for a B-standard article with the main lead being only a single sentence instead of two or three sentences that some other articles of that quality (Ebony Marinoff, Angela Foley). Also checking the page size in terms of prose only just squeak past the 1.5kb which is deemed to be suitable for the article to not be a stub.

IC: Lead is too short and doesn't quite follow MOS:INTRO as it only states her current team instead of summarizing her career as a whole. HawkAussie (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the page size, I don't think there's much to add. Her career is pretty short for now and hasn't played too many games :) Thanks for the explanation. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

César Vinuesa

Hi mate, how are you? Vinuesa passes WP:NFOOTY as he played a match in Segunda División, a fully-professional División per WP:FPL. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 06:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@MYS77: Yes only one match as a substuite player and a check of references state he fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

proposed deletion of several Perth Glory SC season articles

I note the commentary around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000–01 Perth Glory SC season, and the decision to Keep (nomination withdrawn); there are also 4 other season articles currently with the Proposed Deletion tag from 6th May. Noting the comments of @Fenix down: and @Hack: amongst others, and my opinion that they would have identical arguments and likely reach the same consensus, what would be the next step for these other four articles, so they are not just left with this tag indefinitely ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1996–97 Perth Glory SC season
• 1997–98 Perth Glory SC season
• 1998–99 Perth Glory SC season
• 1999–2000 Perth Glory SC season

@Matilda Maniac: Quite simply ignore them as like you said, it would be probably be kept. HawkAussie (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

it was precisely because i went to the talk page of 1997–98 Perth Glory SC season that prompted my searching as to why. Others might do the same. How will they know to ignore a tag that is there indefinitely ? I think it would be better to simply delete these tags, and unless you have objections to this, I will be WP:BOLD and do this tomorrow. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 GOCE drive bling

		The Minor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to HawkAussie for copy edits totaling between 1 and 3,999 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Italy national football team

It is not unconstructive. Have a look at Germany, Spain and other national football teams. They have exactly the same section about results and fixtures. It is the correct style to use. Why not for Italy?--79.43.108.133 (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at the featured articles (Belgium, Peru and Scotland) because that is the goal and they don't have those results. This is due to WP:RECENT and they have been removed because of that reason. Also two of your fellow IP's were aruging about fixtures which @Nehme1499: "fixed" by adjusting it all together. HawkAussie (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We have had this section for ages. Now suddenly everything is changing for which reason? Who decided so far to remove this useful section?--79.43.108.133 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it can't be improved to not have that and also the fact that exact same data is in the Italy national football team results (2010–29) page. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My expetation you will remove that section from each National football team, as it's done for Italy.--79.43.108.133 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No as I was only doing that section to stop the vandalism in the first place and not be a demanding persion like you are sounding like. Their is 200 national teams that you have to change to do that and that is not my main focus right now. Also this conversation is probably best move in the football subpage that you have already done so. This conversation is over. HawkAussie (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote

Dear HawkAussie,

Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.

xinbenlv ^Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off)

The article 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF–OFC play-off) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SounderBruce -- SounderBruce (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2017 EFL League One play-off Final/GA1

Hi HawkAussie, you took on this review a week ago but no signs of any comments, do you know when you might be reviewing the article? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: So sorry, I have been distracted with other things in real life and other writing stuff that doesn't involve Wikipedia. But will plan to do the review tonight hopefully. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Iraq national football team results

HawkAussie, I've seen the edits you did to this article. I want to let you know that the article doesn't need to be shrinked. I want to include all the match details so the format needs to be intact.

Thank you. Steel Dogg (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Steel Dogg: Um, so you want to have a 300,000 byte article then as it's the 178th biggest page on the site. The only reason I did start doing that is to shrink the article to a more reasonable size while still keeping the info intact. Something along the lines of the Belgium national football team results with those results while the extra detail is put in the decade sections. HawkAussie (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a collapsible wikitable for each decade? This is the only way to include goalscorers, referee and attendance..

Steel Dogg (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That exact same data will be in the decade section which we don't need a duplicate of. Plus with the main page, you could in theory add the head to head against other teams and maybe the performances of Iraq in tournaments to that period. HawkAussie (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for completing 3 reviews in the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, Harrias ^talk 08:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:Diff/970095505

Hi, I wonder why did you add Support in my comment? It was already in Support section, so what's the point of adding Support in the comment itself? -- CptViraj (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@CptViraj: Just something to be helpful visually as I am a person to prefers to see a Support next to the message instead of leaving it blank. HawkAussie (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I know you have good intention, But I prefer not to include Support/Oppose/Neutral in the vote when the voting has different sections for Support, Oppose, Neutral. Please don't add again for me, I hope you understand. Thanks :) -- CptViraj (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

1. https://www.bff.com.bd/bangladesh-womens-national-team-flies-for-nepal-sunday/contigent-list-of-saff-bangladesh-womens-national-football-team-2019/
2. https://saffederation.org/saff-women-championship-2019-bangladesh-in-semis-after-bhutan-win/
3. Written at Toronto. "Canada, Jamaica tie one all in soccer". Toronto Star. Kingston Jamaica. Associated Press. 19 October 1992. p. B11.