Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Player positions"

From Hattrick
m
Line 43: Line 43:
  
 
----
 
----
update: not "most requested pages", it is "[[:Special:Wantedpages|wanted pages]]"
+
update: not "most requested pages", it is "[[:Special:Wantedpages|wanted pages]]" ;) If someone is in mood to write the requested page he can do it or he can redirect it to the correct page are he can edit the link.--[[User:Shyrlden|Shyrlden]] 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
;) If someone is in mood to write the requested page he can do it or he can redirect it to the correct page are he can edit the link.--[[User:Shyrlden|Shyrlden]] 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 02:11, 30 November 2005

Plse note 'Winger' problem I have put in 'Winger' page

Also, do we want to use the format Defensive Wingback or Wingback (defensive) as standard.

I prefer the second option personally Dancing rob 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)



there are only six positions for players: Goal Keeper, Central defender, Wingback, Inner Midfielder, Winger and Forward. Everything else here are specific orders for the position and should be included on the position page. ATM we have enough useless onliner articles for the fucking sake of a page. My 0,02$ --Shyrlden 23:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree.--carlesmu 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

---

ok, will add no more to the category.

I've been creating lots of pages that I feel will be needed later on as stub pages for someone to work on. Should I stop Dancing rob 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


I couldn't agree more. Keeper - Wingback - Central Defender - Inner Midfielder - Winger - Forward that's it.

I also agree on Shyrlden's comment regarding those gazillion of useless pages which are just created to "register" the page. It's a wiki, yes, and I know the idea of a wiki. Rob, from what I am seeing, I believe Shyrlden did not mean your article stubs, those are just fine. We could also work together a bit more and do this in a more organized way. If you create stubs we know stuff about, that would be a nice way of sharing the work.

Creating pages is fine - but some readable content wouldn't hurt.

I am a bit concerned that this project dies just because there are no mods who ensure some level of quality. This would be really really sad.

A wiki is the very best place to put all information we know today. No bullshit, no crap design, no wrong information - and if there is, it doesn't stay there forever. my €0.02 --psymon 23:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


We need some rule how to work. It is really annoying to the a lot of pages and 95% are empty. In wikipedia you create just the link (red/orange color) in a article. On the special page "most requested pages" you can see those links. Another point is "where should i add infos". IMHO it is the best to use existing pages (with extra head lines). If the info is really much and the article will become too expansive, then create a new article(-page) for the topic. --Shyrlden 23:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, didn't realise it was possible to view all the red links as easily as that.

I will stop creating stub pages Dancing rob 00:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)



update: not "most requested pages", it is "wanted pages" ;) If someone is in mood to write the requested page he can do it or he can redirect it to the correct page are he can edit the link.--Shyrlden 00:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)