Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ehwdlepiznt (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 26 May 2016 (→Arsenal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Dinamo București

Hi, Qed237. I noticed you reverted my edits on the 2016–17 UEFA Europa League article. However: 1) The reference no. 12, provided in the "Teams" section ("Qualification for European Cup Football 2016/2017". Bert Kassies.), does not include Dinamo București anymore in the qualified teams and mentions that it was not granted a UEFA license. 2) The fact that the club has made an appeal does not automatically grant it the license or the right to participate in the UEFA club competitions in the next season. It is the eventual result that may do that, but until the result the current status is that the club is not permitted to play in the UEFA club competitions in the next season. 3) I have provided a reliable source to support my edits (this one; I know you have come across it before, as I've noticed you post on the talk page of the article). Your argument that an appeal is in place is going against a reliable source that says the club is not eligible to play in the UEFA club competitions, and because there is no source supporting the opposite, in my opinion that might be considered original research. I will consider entering the discussion on the article's talk page depending of your reply to my message. Regards, BaboneCar (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@BaboneCar: Hi, and thank you for your friendly message. These days a lot of editors are to agressive, but I really like the way you discuss the content. With that being said I welcome a discussion about this. Previous discussions has led to the fact that we should keep the teams until the final appeal has been denied, because there has been cases where teams has been changed back and forth because they first have been excluded, then appeal approved, then UEFA appeals and they are removed again, and so on. Current consensus is now that until everything is clear, we should keep the team as "innocent until proven guilty" and they have the right to appeal. I reverted you to make an informative note instead (which I forgot a few days ago because I was very busy). I hope this note is good enough for you, but I am open for discussion. Qed237 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you as well for your reply and for adding that note on the article. However, you did not reply to my points, which head mainly towards the fact that the so-called consensus goes against reliable sources and it might be considered original research. As I said, no sources claim that Dinamo București is qualified at this moment (on the contrary, they state the opposite), and that is including the reference on the article which I mentioned at point one in my previous message. According to the core content policies, "If it's not verified, it can't be in Misplaced Pages". My opinion remains that Dinamo București should be removed from the qualified teams, accordingly with the references. BaboneCar (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@BaboneCar: I see your point, I really do, but at the same time it feels weird to say to teams like Viitorul "welcome to Europa league" and then remove them if Dinamo has their appeal approved. In that way it is better to keep dinamo and say that they might be removed. Also we are very clear with the huge yellow box that the list is temporary. It says The following list of qualified teams is provisional, subject to final confirmation by UEFA in June 2016, as each participating team must obtain a UEFA club licence. All qualified teams are included in this list as long as they have not been banned by UEFA or have not failed their final appeal with their football association on obtaining a licence. Previously we have always used final appeal (including CAS) but now it says "final appeal with their football association" which indeed would imply the removal of Dinamo. I would like to bring in an other editor with very good knowledge of these tournaments. @Chanheigeorge: what are your thoughts? Qed237 (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: @BaboneCar: Looking at the arguments from both of you, I am leaning towards BaboneCar. If an authority say, deduct points from one team, then we will immediately deduct points from that team in the standings, even though the team may be appealing and the ruling can be overturned in the future (e.g. Serbia v Albania in Euro 2016 qualifying), and we will just change the standings again when the appeal is successful. So I think at this point it is better to reflect what the "current" roster of European qualified teams, even though the list of teams may change in the future depending on appeal (of course we should add a note to say that some of these banned teams are aeppealing), where we can easily change it again when the final outcome is decided. We made that decision a few years ago to wait for the final appeal when there really were a lot of back and forth for this license rejected/appeal successful, but it seems nowadays the cases have gone down a lot, most likely because clubs know what they require to get a license. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:2016 Summer Olympics women's volleyball pool A standings

Hi Qed237, on the template Template:2016 Summer Olympics women's volleyball pool A standings and the rest of related templates, I see that it includes footer notes about classification rules.

However one of the article page, particularly Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament and the men's page, already includes the classification rules under the Pool criteria procedure section. I think that the footer from the template makes it redundant to transclude into the article page.

I'd like to suggest that you could possibly modify the templates by having the option to not include the footer , if not completely eliminating it. TjBison (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison: That option already exists. Please see Module:Sports table/Volleyball#Footer options. Qed237 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. One last thing, its seems that the template does not have the option to suppress the source citation footer - at least per the documentation. I was wondering if you know how to work around with it? Thanks a lot. TjBison (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison: Sorry, there is no way to remove that row and in my opinion we should not remove it as all tables should be sourced. Qed237 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello MR.

Hello MR.Qed.. Spain has announced their squad but I couldn't change it because the page is protected can you look at it please ? also.. I have changed before Jordi Alba number of international appearances but someone keeps changing it back.. it is 41 not 42.. even the source at this wikipedia says this http://eu-football.info/_player.php?id=27519 can you also look at it.. ? and I have no idea why someone keeps changing it as this . thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1938:3105:12:3465:C9CE:3A96:3F30 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Europa League

Hi. I respect you but please not start edit wars when you badly known European competitions regulations. This regulations changed almost every season, and I better known that it is. A three days ago you questionted about them who FC Krasnodar don't earned spot in Europa League third round, and won't add FC Sevilla to third round also. --Alghenius (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alghenius: Trust me, I know the rules. You can always read http://m.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/article.160516-european-qualifying-places-explained.html if you dont believe me. Qed237 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

This is wrong information, based on outdated regulations. Very shameful for Premier League official site--Alghenius (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alghenius: No it is not and if it is wrong find a source that says you are right. And lets keep this discussion in one place. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Lost battle?

Just saw the great level of idiocy at Germán Pacheco, an obscure Argentine player. Seriously, don't these idiots get tired of doing this? Oh, and page is now again unprotected...

Thanks for taking care of article while I was "gone", happy editing --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Sollentuna

Hi Qed237, I've made a reply on my user talk page. Feel free to answer whenever you can. Regards QubeCube (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

joe allen

Dont know who you think you are mate but everything i said about my wee joe is true. i dont need any sources as the word came from wee joe himself. If you were a true football youd understand. clearly youre just a fake fan that probably plays rugbyTheWelshXavi (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC) joeallen

All content on wikipedia, specially WP:BLPs must be well sourced and notable, as well as free from editors POV. It is an encyclopedia and not a place for personal thoughts. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2014–15 Europa League

The regulations for that season (here) state "If the titleholder qualifies for the UEFA Europa League through its domestic competitions, the number of places to which its association is entitled in the UEFA Europa League does not change." This implies that, in this scenario, 3 teams from Spain still qualify for the Europa League based on their domestic performance, including Sevilla. Also, the regulation that discusses how the Europa League champion qualified for this tournament is worded almost identically to the regulation that awards the Champions League title holders a spot in that tournament (the title holder "is guaranteed a place in the group stage of the UEFA League"). Yet, we list Real Madrid (here) and Barcelona (here) as having qualified for the 2014–15 and 2015–16 Champions Leagues based on their domestic performance, but not Sevilla in this case? Doesn't make sense, since the relevant regulations are semantically equivalent. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

As you say, the number of teams does not change so they are allowed three teams no matter how they qualify, but they qualified as cup winners, just like the league table states for that season. Qed237 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

UEFA says otherwise here. "Sevilla FC earned group place by finishing fifth in Spain, ...". Here, as well. "Sevilla FC already have that spot from Spain as they were fifth in the Liga...". So both the league table and the Europa League article are wrong. All of this makes it clear that Sevilla vacated the spot earned as Europa League champions, and qualified based on domestic performance. Bmf 051 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It could be seen different ways I guess, but the way I see it (and obviously others before me) is that they qualified as title holders. Qed237 (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cite your source. It says it pretty clearly in the links I've provided. If you don't have a source, don't revert my edits. "It could be seen different ways": those are weasel words. Everything can be "seen different ways", including ways that are wrong. I've provided plenty of evidence that I am not wrong. You haven't provided any that shows that you are not wrong. Just meaningless statements like this.

"Obviously others before me"? If it's so obvious, show me that others see it that way (with diffs, for instance). As far as I know, the only reason your preferred version has stuck for so long is because no one bothered to challenge it. Bmf 051 (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Any response? I just want a reason why you're reverting my edits. In light of what UEFA has said in the links I've provided, I don't think "because that's the way we've done it before" (which is not the same as consensus) is a good enough reason in this case. Bmf 051 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that they qualified as title holders and no consensus will form by discussion on my talkpage, this needs a wider audience. Qed237 (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Qed237 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk

Hi! I have noticed that you reverted the page move from Dnipropetrovsk to Dnipro (city). Please note that this city was officially renamed today with immediate effect (see http://www.unian.info/politics/1349664-dnipropetrovsk-renamed-dnipro.html ), so from today on the real name is Dnipro, not Dnipropetrovsk. Please rename the article about the city accordingly. Thanks — NickK (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) NickK We use the common name for article titles, which may differ from their official name. If you want the page, moved, start a move discussion to get a consensus to move the page- it will likely be controversial, as in Kiev/Kyiv discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of common name policy. Still, this is not a common name question as this is not a dispute between two different romanisations like in Kyiv/Kiev, but a name change issue as we have a former name Dnipropetrovsk and a new name Dnipro. WP:P-NUK does have an exception regarding romanisation issues like Kyiv/Kiev but it does not have an exception for use of old, officially deprecated names instead of old names (e.g. we have articles Luhansk and Mariupol, not Voroshilovgrad and Zhdanov, Ukraine) — NickK (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pro/against the move (I don't know enough about it), but I believe that a move discussion is the only way to settle this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Strictly, of course, there is no actual dispute as yet; merely various opinions on a talk page. When it gets moved, and everyone goes barmy: that'll be a dispute! _Fortuna 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@NickK, Joseph2302, and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: When I made the move, the only thing I have heard was that a decision had been made to change the name, not that the namechange has yet happened. It is interpretation of the sources. Since I moved it back, one editor decided to do a copy-and-paste move which is not allowed so now it can only be moved by administrators. The best way to move forward is a WP:RM and most likely the page should be moved. But this discussion is best at the article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree, @Qed237:, and I will say that although it probably will be moved (there seem to be WP:RS supporting it), you were right to revert such a major edit without any kind of source or discussion (or even indication) beforehand. Cheers, _Fortuna 14:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Moldovan National Division

Sheriff Tiraspol in Europa League and Dacia Chisinau in Champions League. Thanks Ionel141 Ionel141 19:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ionel141: Any source for that? When I read the rules they stated it would be a play-off match between the two teams. Qed237 (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ionel141: According to Moldova Football Federation Friday, May 20, matches were played last stage of the Moldovan Football Championship Edition 2015-2016, National Division. Match Dacia - Sheriff Tiraspol ended undecided 1-1 at the end of the championship so both teams have accumulated the same number of points by 65. According to section. 10.5 of the Moldovan Football Championship Regulations, 2015-2016 Edition, National Division championship title for the establishment of Moldova, 2015-2016 edition will be played one extra match on May 29, 2016 at the Zimbru stadium, city Chisinau, at 20-00. (http://www.fmf.md/ro/news/read/meci_aur_29mai). Qed237 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian cup final

Hello, I don't understand why you reverted my edits on this page? EdmondCA (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: Because despite telling you how to edit in the past, you have no knowledge on how the template is updated and how {{goal}} works. Just look at other matches. Qed237 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237 I knew you seemed familiar, you're the guy who's been harassing me on here over these edits. I used the exact template as the 2014 World Cup Final, I didn't realize I was programming Google Docs over here. You're the only guy who's had a problem with me editing in the past, I just want to be left alone :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: If you want to be left alone, you should learn how to make proper edits. It is not my job (or anyone else) to clean up after your poor edits. If a player scores more than one goal, you dont need an extra goal-template and new players should be on new rows. Qed237 (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: You have not even been able to use the correct dash (en-dash) yet. Qed237 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright I don't appreciate your condescending attitude towards me EdmondCA (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And about the dash, it's called using a phone to edit, ever heard of it? EdmondCA (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You really reverted my edit on Marlos for a competition he won and you had the nerve to give me a warning for it? I have no words to describe you. You don't even know how to fact check. See, now I'm being condescending. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: You have to stop making unsourced edits to a WP:BLP. Qed237 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Football Leage Championship Play-off - Hull v Sheffield Wednesday

Why were the play-off details removed? If I were reading an article on the 2016-17 Premier League, I would like info on the 20th team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.225.91 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

On wikipedia, there is WP:CONSENSUS not to list "or" (i.e. scenarios), but only teams that have actually qualified. Qed237 (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was unaware that Hull v. Sheffield Wednesday is "scenario" !

Template:2016 Summer Olympics women's volleyball pool A standings

May I ask the official link(s) you used for the groups distribution in this template? Leonprimer (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Leonprimer: Hi and thank you for your question. Honestly the answer is that I dont have any source. I just trusted User:Noncommittalp who added the teams. Qed237 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Leonprimer: All I know is that Once all qualified teams have been confirmed - following the last World Olympic Qualification Tournament in May - the twelve teams will be split into two pools using the serpentine method. at the bottom of . Qed237 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that link explains all. Thanks. Leonprimer (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Louis Van Gaal

But Louis Van Gaal is not Manchester United's manager anymore.He got sacked today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMamun84 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So? It is manager for 2015-16 season and you can not remove him saying he was not there? He will not be manager next season though. Qed237 (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Leicester City honours

Hello, I have re added the info about Leicester City being runners up in major competitions. I have given a description of Leicester's cup success and also being runners up, so that it is clarified. Runners up is on many other club's wiki pages, and it is dates which are very key in Leicester's club history. Please keep this as it's important information about Leicester in major competitions. Thanks for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexMlcfc (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexMlcfc: Per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football there is a WP:CONSENSUS that runners-up is not considered as a notable honour. And you can not use other articles as argument per WP:OSE. They will be removed. Qed237 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Could I input a new title in the section with it titled 'runners up' and list all the competitions where Leicester were runners ups? So that it is distinguished between honours. I just think they ought to be mentioned, as they are key dates in the club's history. I'm so sorry if I've caused any inconvenience, I was only trying to share my knowledge. All the best. Thank you. AlexMlcfc (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexMlcfc: Sorry these are not notable in honours. They could be added in the text (prose) if they are well sourced, but not in that section. In general, text is good, list of stats and awards less good. Qed237 (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So to confirm, I understand that I cannot add to the honours section, I understand that. However, may I create a new section entirely called 'Runners up in competitions?' It would make me much happier and I just feel it should be included somewhere on the page, as it's still a part of the club's history. So it's not confused with an honour, it would be in a separate section entirely, so is this ok? Thanks again. If not, I appreciate your help and I apologize again. AlexMlcfc (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexMlcfc: It is not notable enough for its own section but they could be mentioned in the already existing prose. For example in "Post-World War II"-section it says Leicester reached the FA Cup semi-final in 1973–74 which is an achievement. Much more than that they are not needed to be mentioned. Qed237 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

David Luiz

You can clearly see he won the tournaments if you click on the associated pages, I don't get how it could be vandalizing the page if it's clearly true. I guess our conversation did nothing to convince you otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You're given these special reviewing rights and you can't even be bothered to click on the page of the tournament to see if it's true or not? Why do you need to add a source for something so painfully obvious? It's funny how you're the only person who seems to have a problem with my edits. I might quit editing on Misplaced Pages because of you. EdmondCA (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: You have been told that all edits at WP:BLP MUST be sourced and you continue to ignore this. You can not use other wikipedia pages as source and you can not excpect me to do your work and find sources for your work. If you want to add things, YOU MUST provide sources. Qed237 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: And I am sorry if you feel like you want to leave, but it is not only me who have given you warnings for different things and you have been warned about not using sources on BLP in the past. Qed237 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to understand what you want from me, but I just have one more question if I may. I was wondering why most of the honors are not sourced if this is a Wiki policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your help Qed, I am truly, and deeply sorry that I got upset with you, you didn't deserve it. I now realize that you were just trying to help me understand some of the policies, thanks for your help, and your concern. Hopefully we can get along better in the future once I source my material :] I hope to see you around on this part of Misplaced Pages :] Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondCA (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@EdmondCA: That question has many answers. One reason is that in recent times there has been more focus to that section after discussions at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football, for example about runners-up not being an honour. Also that there are so many articles that many editors just dont have the energy to care other than remove them when they are added unsourced. When they have existed for a long time they are often tagged first and then removed after a month. But it is not a valid argument per WP:OSE to add unsourced content just because other articles has unsourced content. Qed237 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal

Arsenal's Twitter account is an official outlet of the club and is most assuredly an reliable source for Aaron Ramsey's number changing. Please let me know if you need any other assistance. Thanks! Wicka wicka (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: Yet there is nothing abouit this on the official page and he has no.16 at the source for the squad (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players). Qed237 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)