You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the →Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Vanderbilt Commodores.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.
If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.
Hi EclecticArkie, you seem never to answer on your talk pages, which makes discussion with you a difficult matter.
Nevertheless I want to tell you that you are very successfully disgarbaging SVG drawings.
Your work has an educational value and others can learn a lot of it.
Your efforts may be much more useful and easier to find when you add them to the appropriate categories, e.g. to
and when you tag them with {{SimplSVG}} maintainig all the appropriate parameters to categorize them into the best fitting subcat. My best wishes for further success sarang♥사랑09:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:NASCAR.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
File:ICS Papa.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi Arkie, you did a lot of good work with SVG drawings. It would be even more useful if you would tag your files, as I told you earlier, e.g. to recategorize them. See Green-Up-Arrow.svg as an example. Good success in future! sarang♥사랑06:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. Click the thumbnail at the right to take a peek at the chart I worked up for the Manchester DerbyManchester Derby chart and let me know what you think. EclecticArkie (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mi vida en muchos casos la vida es algo desesperante]]
vivo entre soledad y soledad buscando paz interior
pienso que se me fue para sienpre mi antonio nava
al final del camino todo para mi fue dificil sin pensar en mentiras--THAIRU VELASQUEZ (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC) thairu velasquez
== necesito irme de viaje
]][reply]
Hey Arkie, I've always loved checking out your league performance graphs. They're very handy. In fact, I've added a few of my own for teams that you've not yet gotten to (Arsenal, Liverpool). I'm just sort of curious about one (and a half) portions of your template graph. Easy one first. The third division south did have 22 teams in it in 1932. It was the north that only had 21 that season. So when it comes to graphing teams that would have been in the south (regardless of whether or not they actually were in that division that year), I've left that tier at 22.
More curiously though, why does your graph expand to 94 teams from 1992 to 1995? In those years, the 4th tier was reduced from 24 to 22 teams while the entire league remained at the constant 92. So should that notch at the bottom not be there?
Keep up the great work though!
Srhansen1985 17:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Chart showing the progress of Arsenal's league finishes since the 1893-94 season
It looks like I replicated the format set up by a user who did some charts several years ago, as in this example. Fixing that should make a nice close season chore on the 75+ charts I've done for English clubs. I also plan to set the number of clubs in the Third Division to 22 except for those clubs that were actual members of the Third Division North in 1931-32 (Crewe, York, Hull, Rochdale, etc.).
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I would much rather fix something like that myself and keep the code minimized, rather than someone else try to do it in Inkscape and create some charts with unnecessarily bloated code.
I just made a few charts in excel and uploaded .png files. Not really sure of a better way to do it. But I was curious if you knew a good way to get the lines in each line chart to appear on top of the "Tier 1," "Tier 2" etc. text. Each time I've made a graph, the text has annoyingly appeared on top of the line and things like "move to back" haven't worked. Here's an example:
Side-by-side comparison of Newcastle's and Sunderland's final league positions 1891-2015
Hi, you do fine and worthful work when disgarbaging SVG drawings. Please don't hesitate to change then also the (not longer valid!) {{Inkscape}} against an e.g. {{Inkscape-hand}}; for an example I did it at Croix de Guerre 1914-1918 ribbon.svg, using the shorthand form with {{Igen}}. Thank you sarang♥사랑11:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Arkie. You have added the great little chart for Man Utd and Liverpool to their club pages, are you able to do a merged one for the relevant rivalry page? If so it'd be much appreciated. Thanks Koncorde (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish versions of English football clubs' league performance[edit]
Hello!
I don't think there is any need to create Swedish versions of your football league position charts. But if you do the headline above should read "Chelsea FC:s ligaplaceringar 1906-2015" and the headline to the left should read "Placering". Jensapag (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I had often wondered how non-English Wikipedians felt about the English-only labels on most of my charts.
Since it has already been created, I will leave the Swedish-only Chelsea chart on Wikimedia Commons. On other club's charts that are being used on sv.wikipedia.org (Newcastle, Everton, etc.), I will include Swedish support along with other languages that can be selected from a pop-up menu on the chart's page on Commons. EclecticArkie (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, something with File:Copyleft.svg was wrong, it could not be validated; the validator considered it as text/plain. I reverted it. (Feel free to try again, of course, if you have a better and valid version.) –Be..anyone💩18:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EclecticArkie,
I've been looking at your SVG work for a while, particularly your soccer league history graphs which are just great.
Seeing you uploaded new versions of the files I watch already, got me wondering about how much time goes into each season of edits, and was pondering thoughts to perhaps semi-automate them (perhaps using VBA in an Excel spreadsheet, so that all one would need to do is add the new season of data, then upload the files [which could also be automated?]). Might make them more adaptable, allowing a larger range of language labels and an easier application to other sports leagues\newly advancing teams\comparison graphics, etc.
But don't really know what goes into it right now. Just add four more pixels to the widths of each graphic, calculate the new position on the path, add tick\gridlines if needed, and save? Do you just type it out team by team, or do you already employ some tricks to speed it up?
Regardless, thanks for all your work sir,
JeopardyTempest (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some thought-provoking points. I've occasionally wished that something like an html "include" tag for the basic template format was possible, one for pre-WW1 clubs (Aston Villa, PNE, etc.) and another for c. 1920 3rd Division entrants (West Ham, QPR, etc.). That could save the effort of widening the entire graphic 10 pixels, widening the border, lengthening the shaded bands for the various tiers, re-centering the title line, shifting the tier labels 10 px to the right, etc. However, it only takes 3-5 minutes to update and upload a club's chart with a few keystrokes of svg code, so it's not particularly time-intensive. On the other hand, table information for every League season is being maintained by other users and the possibility of automating the access of that information for creating a chart dynamically is intriguing. That warrants some investigation. Cheers! EclecticArkie (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really appreciate the response! So only takes maybe 3-6 hours works each year to update all the graphs (do you know how many football graphs you have now, btw?) Until a major change becomes necessary, like changing pixel width of a season (or this crazy 5th league proposal), yeah, I certainly don't see much benefit there in coding it! I had some thoughts of perhaps adding a bit more information (perhaps trophy icons for years winning a domestic\international cup)... or an added section on the bottom of the graph containing (stacked?) bars. But certainly nothing too important to make huge changes over. I came back across your work this time when noticing one of the newer success teams didn't have a graph (Burton Albion, it looks like). But guess those would be harder because it's difficult to come by lower league data (how low have gone on graphs? I've seen some into conference?) Always looking to help automate something useful (seems like most bots are more concerned with housekeeping than updating information\graphics... and I've long wished there was a more centralized place for the bots, where the community could have input, and they could be created\adapted to update information more easily... and people didn't have to reinvent the wheel [also perhaps even more vital when bot maintainers disappear\die]). I haven't written any wiki bots, and it would be something I'd want to do investigate in detail before jumping in wrecklessly... but do have some scripting background. Can you help me get a better idea of where you're most intrigued? Updating the plots as I first suggested? Or doing similar updates more often (weekly\monthly)? Or other making other kinds of charts (such as league position charts)? Or are you suggesting that tables themselves are poorly updated? Regardless, good graphics (and data) are hard to find, and I'm certainly up for helping improve them if I can be any help. Thanks again for your reply :-) JeopardyTempest (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 3-5 hours per year goes into maintaining existing charts. Some prep work gets done to enable quick updates once the season is complete. And, yes, a spreadsheet I use to track the charts tells me that I'm currently maintaining over 100 charts for English clubs, English derbies, and Scottish clubs. It's a borderline obsession.
There are a few clubs like Burton Albion that I just don't know what to do with. The ambiguity of lower leagues in the era before automatic promotion and relegation up and down the entire pyramid continues to make me uneasy. For example, the 1948-49 Southern League. Can it be considered one tier of quality below the Third Division? Two? On par with the Third Division? I'm not comfortable with making that assessment or assumption, so I've sidestepped it whenever possible. I've done a few charts where a club's entire league existence can be narrowed down to the post-1978 era (Wigan, AFC Wimbledon, etc.), but others don't seem so clear cut.
I probably have too much of an I.T. background where a single set of data is maintained to eliminate duplicate data entry or the necessity of updating the same piece of information in multiple datasets. Reports, etc. access the data and give up-to-date detail or summation of the dynamic dataset. In a perfect world, it would be great if the charts could access information in the tables on the en.wikipedia.org pages "yyyy-yy in English football" without ongoing human intervention. A pipe dream, I know, in something as distributed as the wikipedia community. But I can dream. ;-) EclecticArkie (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I'm really interested in your work on graphs, especially UK teams. I'd like to make some, for other divisions and such so how do you do it? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.36.130.211 (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've tried to avoid non-League years in graphs from the era before automatic promotion and relegation up and down the entire pyramid, and I'm scratching my head as to why those years found their way onto the Palace chart. Cheers! EclecticArkie (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
I'm glad you find the charts informative/entertaining. They are a labor/obsession of love. There isn't an intentional repository, but the Commons category "Table rank diagrams of England" serves as an unofficial repository, along with some other users charts. Some charts for Scottish clubs are in "Association football diagrams". – EclecticArkie (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I really like your design for the football evolution charts, and am curretly working on doing something similar to it but for Portuguese teams. I'm still a bit of a beginner in SVG design, and am using your files as a learning tool to develop my skills. The thing is, I'm afraid the design I'm making for it is heavily similar to yours, and was wondering if it's ok to keep going with this design or if you'd rather me pursuing something different. Here's a screenshot of what I currently have at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijozico (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be perfectly OK. In fact, my charts are just svg versions of some charts done by user Payo, as seen in this chart for Manchester United. It looks like you are definitely on the right track with the basic format you've developed for Portuguese clubs. EclecticArkie (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've been making performance charts for German, Swiss and Austrian teams inspired by your British ones. And I wanted to ask for some advice from you about the format.
Wurzburger Kickers
Unlike the very stable British system, the ones I'm working with have had many reforms, and it makes the graphs jump sharply each time a league is dissolved or created (see the Wurzburger chart in 63-64, 94-95, 08-09). And also the number of teams in each league constantly changes between seasons, which can make the season-to-season progression of a team hard to track (the same chart, see the Landesliga in the 80s or the 00s, it's a mess).
So as a way to fix this I thought of a different format that to me seems neater (see the Bern chart).
FC Bern
It doesn't have a fixed Y axis for the whole system, but instead is essentially like separate graphs for the team's each continuous spell in each tier connected together in one image, and then the rest of the system built around it (like this: https://i.imgur.com/XTNP7rZ.png). And here's how the same team looks in the "usual" format: https://i.imgur.com/H8bFpa8.png
So is this new format, like, comprehensible at all? What do you think? I tried asking in the Wiki Soccer Project discussion page, but no one there seemed to care, and I really need a second opinion.
I wish I had some words of wisdom for you. I have considered doing some charts for some German clubs, but the leagues there have been restructured so many times I don't know if my charts would be comprehesible. Even in the stable English league system, I have sidestepped ambiguities, like what to do with Tottenham Hotspur's seasons in the Southern League from 1896-1908 before they were elected into the Second Division.
It may not be easy or quick, but user feedback about your charts is probably the best way to judge their effectiveness. People WILL suggest improvements, enhancements, etc. For example, the vertical lines every fifth year in my charts was the result of user suggestions. EclecticArkie (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like many readers, I love your football league charts! I see you have sometimes added two clubs to the same chart, usually where there is a history of 'derby' matches, for example, Newcastle v Sunderland:
Side-by-side comparison of Newcastle's and Sunderland's final league positions 1891-2015
You have done charts for both MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon - but given their history, I think a graph showing the two would be fascinating. It could be on either or both clubs' pages, but especially useful at or near the end of Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes. Would that be possible?!
That's an excellent idea. I have a chart worked up that I will post once the season ends early in May, so the 2017-18 season can be included. The "relocation" page, as well as the "rivalries" section on the two clubs' pages, should be an appropriate setting for such a chart.
Hi mate, I was wondering if you could mock up a chart of Wrexham AFC's league positions since we joined the football league in 1921 until now? I like the work you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxmowain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have no explanation why one had not been done sooner. It's just a slight modification of the format of Hartlepool's chart (Div3N founder member with a stint in the Conference). Thanks for the request. EclecticArkie(talk)21:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hey there! Just wonder is there any chance you could change the colour of the line on the Ipswich Town graph to blue, its just it being red doesn't really make any sence as on nearly every other team the line matches the teams kit colour and Ipswich play in blue, and not red. No massive issue I just would make it look better on the page.
Thanks in advance Segavisions1991 (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You raise some very valid points. I will tinker with that graph line in the near future to get it to more accurately reflect the club identity, certainly before the Pride of Anglia chart gets updated.
Hi, if you get a chance would it be possible for you to update the football position charts for teams in Scotland? It would also be great to have charts created for more teams, especially for Livingston (the only Premiership club without one) plus the Championship clubs - if you've got the time.
Berwick Rangers and East Stirlingshire would also be useful charts to have as well, since they are the only two clubs who have been relegated to tier 5 in Scotland.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi, I've noticed you're the author of many charts showing teams progression over the years. There are some teams in the Football League that are not up to date or that are missing a chart completely. If you're still interested in them and have time to spare, you might take a look at this list.
1. Burnley FC (chart that you made is not updated for 18-19) 2. Middlesbrough F.C. (user who made the chart (Srhansen1985) didn't update it after 2017) 3. Liverpool FC (Srhansen1985 didn't update the chart after 2015) 4. Milton Keynes Dons F.C. (last updated in 2017, also made by Srhansen1985) 5. Mansfield Town F.C. - team that spent majority of its history in Football league, without a chart.
P0g0: I'm not sure what happened with the Burnley chart. Apparently, I had done the update to the .svg file on my local machine but hadn't done the upload to Commons. I guess it slipped through the cracks in the process of updating over 100 charts. And a chart for Mansfield Town is in the "works." In the past, I was reluctant to do charts for clubs that had spent time in the Conference due to the extra formatting, but have since gotten past that reluctance. Apparently, I simply had not circled back and done a chart for Mansfield.
Also, I'll take a look at those other clubs' charts. That user did charts for several clubs that have been updated sporadically, or not at all. Creating the charts looks like fun, but it quickly turns into work with bitmap graphics. Manually coding .svg graphics is easier to maintain, but the learning curve on the code is much steeper. I've been trying to allow time for that user to update their stuff, but I'll take your inquiry as a vote for me to move ahead on converting and updating those charts.
Thanks for the response. For me, a fan of football history, these chart are a great asset to have on wikipedia. They give a quick trip into a history of a football club. I understand the formatting problem created by the teams that yo-yo up and down the pyramid. That's why I don't expect a team like Burton Albion to have one. Or teams that are new to Football league and might not last long there (Morecambe). But Mansfield sticks out, a club that spent only 5 years outside football league (if I'm not mistaken). I'm glad the chart is in the making. About those other charts.. considering it's been almost 3 seasons since last update, I think it's fair to assume he lost interest or simply doesn't have the time to do it. P0g0.try (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this may be my first edit on Wikimedia Commons!
I'd like to thank you for doing so much work on charting the performance on seemingly all the football teams I happen to come across on Wikipedia. It must be hard work. Like, I always check the author of each such chart and every time, it's attributed to you.
And you don't even get paid anything for all that work!!
Thank you for the kind words. The charts are a labor of love. While their initial setup was labor intensive, thanks to the power of .svg graphics, it only takes 6-8 hours to do the annual updates on the charts. I'm glad you find them informative. EclecticArkie(talk)07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed you started updating the position graphs again for the 2020-21 season league finishes, and I noticed that Sheffield United's graph has them erroneously placed at the top of the Premier League this season instead of the bottom of it. I had a hearty chuckle from it and as much as I wish that were true, I just wanted to point it out before someone else did.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention so tactfully. I have no excuse or explanation for how that file got uploaded in that state. The 19th must have been Opposite Day. EclecticArkie(talk)18:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Upon further review, the chart has contained that error since 2014, but the very first version was correct. Bizarre. Even the version for Swedish wikipedia was incorrect. At any rate, both have now been corrected. Cheers! EclecticArkie(talk)15:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. And thanks for maintaining these charts; they're a terrific way to get a lot of at-a-glance information about a club's history. Edward Tufte would be proud. Mike Christie (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have seen a lot of your work regarding football league performances by different clubs over the years. I am a fan of what you have done with such, as it's very impressive and informative.
I was wondering if you would make a chart for Barrow AFC, given they've recently returned to the football league in the past few years, I'd be interested to see their progress both there and in non-league since they were originally elected to join in 1922.
Also I'd be curious to see if you'd do one for Burton Albion since they joined the football league in 2009. As though comparatively new to the EFL, they have already had certain highs in the Championship; and it would be interesting to see their progress, even in a short time span.
Finally, I'm a Peterborough fan, and would definitely be interested in seeing a comparison of league performances between us and our main rival in Cambridge United since 1960 until today.
Hello, thanks for doing this. I edit on Wikipedia as Nintendo Chalmers, and noticed the Barrow AFC file has an error in it. The finishes from 1968-1970 are Division 3, the higher tier (see FCHD). Any chance of you correcting that? I'll try and do it myself if you're not able to, but it may be quicker for you if you have the original file and data. Many thanks though for your work on these! 128.240.225.4609:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your continued excellent work on the position charts. I’ve just noticed an small error on the Hartlepool graph, it has the 2022 finishing position of 17th tier 5 where it should be 17th in tier 4 — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A00:23C5:EC9D:E100:A105:9448:FBE1:9ACE (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could attempt to do Bath City FC? maybe[edit]
I know they’re a relatively small club that currently compete in the national league south, but it would super fascinating to see a graph of all past seasons! By the way your work is fantastic!
Thank you very much even if you don’t do it just for sparing time to read this comment.
Keep it up Joseph1891 (talk) 28 September 2022 (UTC)
As an American, I've approached charts involving non-league clubs with a great deal of trepidation. For example, would you be OK if a Bath chart eliminated the top three tiers of the Football League and had the Southern League/Fourth Division across the top of the graphic? Or would you prefer to see them on the chart? Example: theoretically, the Torquay chart could eliminate the top two divisions, but I included them since they're in all of my other charts. Also, I thought Torquay supporters might be offended if I eliminated them, which might suggest "Your club will never rise to that level."
Montrose FC and Forest Green Rovers historical positions graphs[edit]
Would it be possible for you to make two separate position graphs, one for Montrose FC of the Scottish Leagues and another for Forest Green Rovers of the EFL? Many thanks!
Gudlator (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gudlator: Please look at the Montrose page to see the graph I worked up for them.
What are your thoughts about where to possibly begin a Forest Green chart? I have considered doing a chart for them but the starting point for the chart kept me from diving in. I tend to tread lightly when dealing with clubs in the regional leagues. The knock-on effects of leagues adding and dropping clubs up and down the pyramid can make a nightmare of setting up the colored bands for the various tiers, which also have to be maintained going forward into the future. On the other hand, doing a chart only 25 seasons wide for FGR's time since being promoted into the Conference didn't seem altogether right, either.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Would be appreciated if you could make a graph for them. Thanks in advance. P0g0.try
I'll take a crack at that in the near future. I like to give people a couple of years to update their stuff before I jump in and do an .svg version. I'm comfortable with allowing three years before stepping in. EclecticArkie(talk)16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard, hope you are well. I know you made this fantastic Bath City graph a year or so ago, however Bath weren't in any official tiers before 1980. So the graph is technically inaccurate and miss-leading to readers. (Even though The Southern League was basically the top level before the formation of the Alliance Premier League) It cannot officially be stated as such, looks as though Bath were in the FL Fourth Division.
I was wondering if you could possibly just trim the part of the Bath City graph previous to 1980? Using Yeovil Towns as an example if you get the chance. That would be fantastic.
Bath City F.C. League performance graph by Richard Rundle
:I also personally think the top tiers should be eliminated, seems silly having tiers in the graph that are never used, especially for non-League clubs. - just takes up extra space. Bathwelshman19 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant Eclectic, only thing I might add, would it be possible to make the background grey a tad lighter and the line black, similar to my example if it's not too much trouble? It just it makes it a lot clearer from far away and for viewers that no longer have that 20/20 vision. Perhaps maybe making the graph a tad wider, more of a rectangle so it's quite not so compact/narrow. I'm not sure if that's too much to ask. But thank you, your work is really truly fantastic and greatly appreciated. I hope you have a great summer. Bathwelshman19 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
→ Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 03:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
