Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Football: Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

UEFA License

Is it correct that CSKA Sofia is entitled to start in the Europa League? http://www.novinite.com/articles/180554/UEFA+Expels+CSKA-Sofia+FC+From+European+Tournaments)

For Irtysh Pavlodar there was also an announcement by the UEFA http://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/disciplinary/news/newsid=2551752.html. Has this been reverted? --Tulumino (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RM

Your input are welcomed in Template talk:2018–19 UEFA Champions League group table#Requested move 20 October 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Group A, H, J, L standings.

The standings for groups A, H, J and L in this article do not match the standings published by the UEFA.T v x1 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because UEFA doesn't actually apply its own tie-breaking criteria until the group stage is over. I say we just ignore it and continue to apply them ourselves. The fact is, if the group stage ended today, the teams would be ranked in the order we have them in. – Pee Jay 11:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that that is at odds with WP:OR and WP:verify. In any case we must reflect the standings published by the UEFA once the group stage has finished. At that point we must list the teams that have gone through to the next round in reality as having gone through.T v x1 18:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded

Because there are too many matches in qualifying pages in this category, we should split articles again:

Before 2017–18, split into qualifying rounds and play-off round
After 2018–19, split from 2 paths into 5 rounds (increase from 2 articles to 5 articles)

Thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Invited some involved editors and will advertise on WT:FOOTY. If no one opposed in 24 hours, I will work on from tomorrow to next week Hhkohh (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't know why these articles are in that category, but the claimed template isn't anywhere to be found in the articles. In fact I cannot make sense of that category as there is not template conforming to any possible of the provided names. Doing a quick size check demonstrates that there is no need for a split per the guidelines. Note that readable prose size is the criterium, no overall size. On a side note, you should give people much more than 24 hours to respond before starting to change articles. Remember that is night at some place in the world at every time. 24 hours is nothing in an human life. You should wait at least a week before making such dramatic changes.T v x1 14:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they're in there is because there are too many templates on the page. If you scroll to the bottom of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Main Path), you'll see why that's a problem. – Pee Jay 14:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I realized that as well in the mean time. The problem is not the article size, but that every row in every table is generated through a separate template. Since that is clearly creating problems, they should simply be replaced by tables made from one template.T v x1 14:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this for a while, but couldn't we do it by getting rid of the {{goal}} template? We don't really need a ball icon to signify that the player is listed because he scored a goal, and the time of the goal doesn't really need to be in small text. Why don't we try that out before making any drastic changes to the templates we use to display football results. – Pee Jay 14:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can definitely get rid of that. And small text can be achieved by using markup instead of template.T v x1 15:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about getting rid of the {{TwoLegStart}} and {{TwoLegResult}} templates, and reformat the match summaries using regular tables? Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I referred to earlier as well. However, I'm not certain that would resolve the issues as many {{Flagicon}} templates would appear as a result of that.T v x1 16:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd prefer to get rid of the {{goal}} template first, although I know that might not go down very well. How about I suggest it at WT:FOOTY? Unless we make the simple decision to split these articles up, I can see any decision we make having wider implications for all football articles. – Pee Jay 16:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No qualms there. This is a general Footy issue. I'm convinced we can avoid have to split into dozens of articles.T v x1 16:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked {{goal}} template, maybe this edit in the template cause this issue? Can a template editor revert to check this issue? Hhkohh (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1, PeeJay, Chanheigeorge, I just do this edit instead of using plain table. Is it okay? Hhkohh (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging PeeJay2K3, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually been wondering whether we could replace them with modules. It appears to work just fine. I have successfully replaced them in the 2009-10 article as well.T v x1 20:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just found someone have created 2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round, 2011–12 UEFA Europa League second qualifying round, 2011–12 UEFA Europa League third qualifying round, 2011–12 UEFA Europa League play-off round, 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League play-off round several months ago. Now, we can use module directly to merge them again! Hhkohh (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convert status:

2009–10 Done
2010–11
2012–13
2013–14
2014–15
2015–16
2016–17 Done
2017–18 Done
2018–19 Done

Merge status:

2011–12 (Before merging, post to AfD)
2016–17 Done

Hhkohh (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it seems the recent change to Template:Football box, which now calls a module, caused the issue. In the future the module can now be called directly when the post-expand include size becomes an issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The module uses a lot of :css() additions. It's possible this could be greatly reduced using Wikipedia:TemplateStyles for the CSS. I used it for the Module:Clade (that makes the phylogenetic trees in biology pages) and it halved the total template transclusion size of pages with large trees which call the template many times. The actual reduction will depend on how much inline styling is used and how repetitively it is used. Jts1882 | talk 07:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882, pinging Frietjes to update that module, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh, part of the reason why the expand size of template:football box is so large is all the schema, which aren't in template:football box collapsible. it would be great to merge template:football box and template:football box collapsible at some point. Frietjes (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried changing the {{football box}} templates to {{football box collapsible}}. It did allow another five matches to be displayed but there were still 20 or so untranscluded. Jts1882 | talk 14:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882, I refactored football box to use templatestyles, which has removed a few pages from 'Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded', replacing {{football box with {{#invoke:football box|main may help as well (e.g., see here) now that the module has been refactored. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2010–11 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round was fixed with no edits, so I assume your templatestyles did the trick there. I hadn't realised using #invoke got around the template size limits. Jts1882 | talk 15:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882, that is what I was doing (replacing invoke:football box|main with football box Hhkohh (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think replacing #invoke:football box|main with football box helps, but replacing football box with #invoke:football box|main will help in some cases. just be careful if the page is transcluded in another page since the module can see the child page in that case. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay Hhkohh (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time of final

Should it be in AZT or UTC? I thought we normally put UTC down. Govvy (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the time of the final in local time with the UTC time in parenthesis. Jts1882 | talk 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should do that, this is a European competition and you would think the majority of readers are European, it would make sense to have UTC also. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]