User talk:CRwikiCA/Archive 3

LUA league table

Hi again, I see the table is moving forward fast and I really like what I see. I just have one idea I thought of and I thought I should share my idea (even of you may not agree). I have been editing the new english league tables (and the PL sandbox while testing) and I think the tables requires a lot of work to update (even if it is straight forward) when many teams changes position (this early in season). First I always update table with all results and then move teams around. So first teams get moved around and almost entire table needs new numbers, team05 should be 07 and so on. Then when taking "show preview" you see some new position errors and move those and new numbers are needed. This can go on 3-4 times (maybe I am bad) if the table is large and a lot of matches has been played at same time ie 1500 bst on a saturday.

That is why I hatched the idea of teamXXpos-parameter that could theoretically be used for position of a certain team. Then when teams are updated you only need to update the pos parameter and the teams can always be listed for example alphabetically team01=arsenal, team02=aston villa and so on with team01pos=5, team02pos=3 and so on. This way teams could still have same name parameter otherwise you could consider teamA, teamB and so on, but I think they can still be numbered. I think the updating would be so much easier fore everyone, but I understand coding would be worse (I think).

As a further thought I just came up with maybe this can be used if teams have shared positions (dont know how it would be implemented though) like team04pos=5, team08pos=5.

Just an idea, but as I said I thought I could at least share it and see if you have any thoughts? QED237 (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: I have had similar ideas in the past. I decided to go against it, because people might be tempted to only change one team's position and note all. I just though of an alternative, still have team01 etc. but have the other stats as winAAA etc instead of by team number, do you think that would work instead? (Setting it up might be a little bit more involved, but it might be a lot more fail-proof). Coding wise it should be possible to implement. CRwikiCA talk 23:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly how you mean or how it would work. Does it mean it will be easier to update, because only teamXX needs updating? QED237 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: Just as a side note, in the coming month I might be MIA for some times. We should aim for what would be easiest to update, if you have teamXXpos parameters, it could be really easy for someone to leave one out and have a double one. If you have team1=A, team2=B etc, that would not be a problem. Then it is probably easiest to have a hybrid system with win_A, draw_A, ..., ga_Z, so updating individual team stats is easier and quicker. (I would also be open to try the teamXXpos, but I am "afraid" a lot of people would update only one teams number then and note all, because there is no "forced" reason to do so.) CRwikiCA talk 14:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I think it is just as easy for editors to not update/miss on of the XX number so we have two win09 for example, but perhaps you are right. What I was asking his how the winA is connected to team01=A? will the parameters be like winArsenal? I think you should do what you feel is best and then we can see if it is working. QED237 (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: We will basically get one shot to get it right, because if we implement it on a wide scale, it will be a lot of work to go back to a different format. So in the hybrid suggestion, it would be something like: |team1=ARS |team2=WIG ... and then after that |win_ARS=1 |draw_ARS = 2 etc.. |win_WIG=1 |draw_WIG=3 etc.. etc..
You might have missed my reply to your Q1 comment on WT:FOOTY btw. Not many people have commented on that topic, it doesn't seem like many people care about what happens with the tables. CRwikiCA talk 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think your suggestion will work, and will be easier than the current solution to update. Not sure however about the parameter-names that could possibly be long. I have been thinking to not use the three letter names in future (as I have seen full names on other places) and in those cases it could be team5=Borrussia Mönchengladbach and win_Borrusia Mönchengladbach=2 and so on. It could also help understanding in the articles where table is called if team=Borrussia Mönchengladbach is used instead of team=MÖN (or whatever is most common used). But as I said, your suggestion would most likely work well. QED237 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: Good point about the naming, in principle it wouldn't be limited to anything, because it's just string concatenation. So, it could vary a bit depending on the league. CRwikiCA talk 23:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237:: I implemented this in the module, see User:CRwikiCA/LuaTest for examples (I am still updating some of this for the testcases). CRwikiCA talk 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

On that page, I also added a table for default colours I would implement. It is based on what is used currently, but slightly adapted to build up in intensity from 3/4 to 7/8 to 15/16 to 31/32 of the range. Let me know what you think of that. CRwikiCA talk 17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay I have looked at it now and I really like what I see. I just have a few comments. About the name/position fix, I think it will work out very well (Good documentation would not hurt as always, to explain how to use it, but that is for later when all done). I also saw the head to head notes and there I am not so sure it is best idea to have them together with other notes or if it is possible to split and have a section below table for head-to-head? Also the notes in your initial example leads not note d listed before c for team number three. Just know I got the idea the the head-to-head note might be better to have in the position column instead of after the team? Or maybe we should have a new column as it currently is? About the colors I really like what you have done and presented although I never have seen all colors used (for example black?) and the level1 color for green might be to dark for wikilinks (even if it the one currently used) so I would suggest one of the other greens such as regular scheme. Also some tournament group stages has used both purple and blue (for playoff secured and at least second place) when best secondplaced teams go to playoff and some second placed teams dont, but maybe that can be solved with other colors. QED237 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: A good documentation is absolutely necessary for this to work. But indeed, I want to get the core set up before starting to write the documentation (and of course include plenty of examples. I don't like the separate head-to-head column at all, because it is mostly empty, the placement of the notes can be different. I now placed those in the points column, so they do stand out, alternatively they could go in the position column if you think that looks better. I changed the greens in the proposal, if you think it looks good now, we can bring it to WT:FOOTY. I think blue and purple can be solved with blue levels 1 and 2. We'll need to fine tune some of the colour/letter usage probably (or even allow a note in that column as well). CRwikiCA talk 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I tested the new colors, which you can see at {{2014–15 Premier League table}} (old colors) and {{2014–15 Premier League table/sandbox}} (new colors). I would say it is ready for FOOTY, maybe level1 and level2 is to similar for blue but in this case level 1 and 3 can be used together (as in old tables). I would take head-to-head there to if I were you. I am not saying that the head-to-head column is needed and I like that you moved the note so it stands out, but perhaps consensus were the note should be, that is points or position column? And you dont think we could have a section below table for "head-to-head notes:" to separate them from the other notes? Just an idea. QED237 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure but maybe ccffcc is better for green level1? QED237 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: I will bring the updated colour scheme to WT:FOOTY with CCFFCC as level 1 green. For the head-to-head option, I think it's best to form blanket consensus for all elements of the module once it is finished and seek community input for potential changes that might be needed. Splitting the notes section would make the footer 3 lines longer, just to form another (head-to-head) note category. I can implement it as a test if you are interested to see what it would look like. CRwikiCA talk 20:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It sounds good. The colors have both positive and negative sides. CCFFCC is not as bright and may seem slightly better but on the other hand it may get more similar to the level 2 color. I am also re-thinking the blue color, I think we maybe should avoid bright colors and then uniformity between level one colors would give ccccff (purple) as an alternative (you can test that to in sandbox). And I agree with you on the other part, lets form a consensus for that when module i finished, and the footer (which is big in current tables) will maybe be to long. QED237 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But as I said I am really back and forth on the colors so input on those would be great. QED237 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I started the discussion on WT:FOOTY, I am not bothered by the colours one way or the other. I would just prefer a standard guideline, so pages don't look like a colour explosion. The other two proposals are more finding formal consensus what already is common practice, but it is good to have that consensus as a referral anyway. CRwikiCA talk 21:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have some colors for first section in my sandbox User:Qed237/sandbox that some from consistency between the letters/numbers. I am considering adding that to footy (even if level 3 and 4 are similar). What do you think? QED237 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok if I use this format on an article to try it out? I was thinking about using it on a league which is small and, as a result, less edited (I tend to avoid editing the well-known leagues like The Premier League, La Liga, etc. because I don't need to since there are so many watchers and editors for those).Equineducklings (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: Try it out, by all means, and let me know if the documentation is clear! Feel free to link the article here, so I can take a look at the work in progress as well. Hopefully you would find it easy to implement. CRwikiCA talk 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I started on a page where I have been the only one to edit for around a month. I used a fairly simple version and it was quite easy to implement. 2014–15 Gibraltar Second Division Equineducklings (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings:It's good to hear it was easy to implement! One small style point: In some leagues direct promotion is green and promotion play-off is blue, that is the only comment I have. If you find, down the road, that there is something tricky about editing it, then let me know what problems would occur. Keep up the good work! CRwikiCA talk 13:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed the color, maybe that will become the norm. I looked around and found these are the colors used for promotion play-off in these leagues: 2.Bundesliga in Germany (#E8FFD8), Segunda Division in Spain & Scottish Championship (#D0F0C0), many leagues in England (#D1E231). Maybe the consensus on that will come as more people use this new format.Equineducklings (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Equineducklings: Hi, as one of the "helpers" with this module implemented by CRwikiCA i must first of all say I am glad that you have tried (and succeded) implementing the new module and that you found it easy. Secondly the discussion on color has taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Standard colours (colors) for season articles and it is about top be archieved, but please comment on the colors there. Especially section Table colours were the colors for that part is discussed. Mainly it has been green for qualification to main tournament (or knockout phase if it was group stage) on tournaments and then blue has been for playoff. Look example at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) and we want consistency so in that case promotion is green and playoff is blue. When the new moduole are spreading this will be modified around wikipedia (if consensus dont change). QED237 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Whit the page move I saw you removed module:football. Dont forget Module:Football table/sandbox

Yes, I moved it, I am going through everything to update it and will move the sandbox as well. CRwikiCA talk 15:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a couple of quick questions:1)I am thinking about putting this in a couple of other leagues (probably tomorrow), should I put something in the Edit Summary about the change. 2)Do you want me to let you know which ones like the other one I did earlier?Equineducklings (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: I think you can test on a few more pages, but please note that the module is alpha-rated which when looking at it says This module is rated as alpha. It is ready for third party input, and may be used on a few pages to see if problems arise, but should be watched. Suggestions for new features or changes in their input and output mechanisms are welcome. So if you do make sure you watch it for errors and please also let us know so that we can watch changes made to it. It is great it is being tested and a few more pages probably wont hurt but it is a testing phase to spot possible errors and they need to be watched. When we are certain there are no errors it will be taken to the football project (again) for consensus to put into wider use. Thats why I have not added to engligh leagues yet, to try on other articles first. QED237 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As a side note I notified @Mr. Stradivarius: who I believe has experience in LUA and he created Module:League table (I just spotted that) as a test when the first version for showing parts of a table was created about a year ago. Perhaps the modules should be merged or something, i dont know. Maybe he can have some useful input. QED237 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: I do not see any functionality in Module:League table that is not in the Module:Sports table, so I don't think a merger would add much at this point. Mr. Stradivarius input in this process could be worthwhile though.
@Equineducklings: Feel free to use the module, but watch out for potential errors that might occur. If you have any suggestions to make it easier to edit, then let us know as well. CRwikiCA talk 23:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never got too far in writing Module:League table, so I don't think you need to worry about merging with it. The idea was to make a meta-module that other modules could use to make league tables, so if it was finished it would mean Module:Sports table would be converted to use it. But that would only make sense if it was finished and properly tested, and that won't be happening any time soon. And depending on exactly what Module:Sports table aims to do, it may not even make sense then. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: The aim is to make the Module:Sports table adaptable to other sports as well. CRwikiCA talk 19:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I changed 2014–15 Campionato Sammarinese di Calcio to the new format. After changing my mind a couple of times, I used blue as the color for teams advancing from the regular season to the play-offs. I noticed one very minor difference from the old table. When using fb footer: after entering a date for when the table was updated, it displays "Updated to games played...", and the new table displays "Updated to game played...". Both can be wrong depending on the number of games being played that day, so I'm not sure you need to change anything. I wanted to point it out so you are aware. Equineducklings (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: Thanks for pointing out the typo, I corrected it, let me know if you find any other issues! Note that for the Sammarinese league the play-off is the highest achievable result, so it might be coloured green instead. It's good to see you find it easy to use! CRwikiCA talk 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought it should be green and talked myself out of it, funny. I has been fairly easy, but I assume I shouldn't use it in too many places until things are further along. Equineducklings (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking about the use of word game actually, I always wanted to change that in old templates. Game is more like tournament, for example "Olympic games", while in fact they play in matches, for example in 2014 FIFA World cup the matches was numbered match 1, match 2 and so on. You dont say "a soccer game" you say "a soccer match" when two teams meet. I would use "match(es)" which means it can be one or multiple matches. QED237 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to use "game" and "match" interchangeably, so I had not noticed this before. Now that I think about it, it is somewhat odd to see "game(s)" after a table for The Premier League, for example. Which word to use is made somewhat more complicated if the module will be used across multiple sports. Equineducklings (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I can believe the word can be depending on the sport, in chess-tournament it is a chess-game (if chess is a sport?) but in football I believe match is better. Also on player articles the stats section it often say "as of match played 27 September 2014" and so on. In the infoboxes it says "...correct as of 21:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)" added with timestamp (five tildes). One way is to use the word match, but we could also use timestamp instead and avoid the game/match problem. Also in those cases it does not say "Updated to game played..." when all matches (evening matches) that date has not been added but only early matches are added. A timestamp may make that more clear to reader as they see only matches early on the day is added, but in same way it could make for more incorrect edits as some dont know how edit timestamp. But at same time "correct as of 5 October, without time after the matchday could work. However this may need consensus at the football project later on. The results sections for example 2014–15 Premier League#Result table also uses "games played on..." and in that case that possibly has to be changed too so it is same style everywhere. QED237 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237 and Equineducklings: I straight up copied the format currently used, but changing it might make sense. Chess match is used as well, although exclusively for competitive games, whereas chess games is also used for any play (chess matches would be a subset of chess games). So I think it is also fair to use the word matches in the chess example. I made this change. Including times in the update seems fine, but I think that should be handled outside of the module and be incorporated by editors where applicable. CRwikiCA talk 15:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess I missed it before, but I noticed you created the groups in UEFA U-17 qualifying differently than in the leagues. Specifically, you put (name_XXX=) on the same line with the results. Did you decide that would work better in that situation? It seems to work fine, I was just curious what you were thinking about it. Equineducklings (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: I did that, because it is short and all the same length. But maybe it's not a good idea to keep it consistent. Feel free to move them down to their own section. CRwikiCA talk 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw you changed it. Sorry, I meant to get to it before you to save you the time. Equineducklings (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you have noticed but there is a LUA error currently att your LUA testpage under Live table-section. It says Lua error in Module:Sports_table/sandbox at line 55: Tried to read nil global p_style.. QED237 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just realised it was sandbox so I guess it is a test. QED237 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am testing some parts, but I haven't found much time the last week and a half to fix it. CRwikiCA talk 23:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions Lua table

Hi again, I saw your edit at footy project and reply here so I dont affect other editors and if they see someone already responded they might skip reading it. I have a few things I have thought about:

Now we say "matches played by", I suggest use of match(es) which implies it can be one or more match and I believe is correct after a google search and own experience.
What date are we supposed to use when no match has yet been played? I saw you use 1 January 2014, which might be good because then editor can see how it should look. An alternative is to comment the date out before first match (if editos know how to remve a comment after first match).
The notes are sometimes to small to read (at least to me), is it possible with bigger note text?
How do we solve current color scheme in 2014–15 UEFA Champions League (group stage) with the letters currently available. (A) for first two teams and (Q) for the third placed team? In that case A is better than Q while for example in eredivisie it is the other way around, which may confuse readers. And also what about "at least third place", EL or CL (not E) and "not top two but maybe third" should that have a letter or just leave it blank?
I am used to (Q) and (C), should they really be in same bracket (C, Q)?

There might have been one more I cant remember. Not big issues just thoughts in my head. QED237 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: you make some valid points, I changes matches to match(es). I tried to get the notes larger, but I haven't been able to succeed after some sandbox testing. With regard to the other points, that would also be partially to consensus. I used the date of the draw/a date in the past/the date of creation before, I don't think it really matters, because it is correct as long as it is a date before the first match is played. I would be inclined to use the data of creation or draw date (if there is a draw). I would in group tables indeed use A for advancing (because that is typically what it is) and Q for teams going into EL. I would also leave it blank when the team cannot be top 2, because we don't need to spell out every scenario, besides not having A/E/Q's would indicate that already. I think it is proper to include multiple letters in the bracket (C, Q), because having 2+ separate brackets looks bad in my opinion. I would also suggest to leave the letters Q after the season is over (which is different from what is done now) so it is immediately clear they qualified. All these formatting points should probably discussed on WT Football after this initial consultation round is over. CRwikiCA talk 14:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I was looking at the 2014 Argentine Primera División and noticed something. In Argentina the qualification for the Copa Libertadores and Copa Sudamericana fluctuates depending on where teams finish (meaning finishing in a certain place doesn't always mean you qualify for a particular event). Is there any way to adjust for that besides needing to change result1, result2, etc.? Equineducklings (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: Do you happen to know what rules govern which team goes into which tournament? CRwikiCA talk 20:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The official rules are in Spanish, I have not seen them in English. I speak Spanish but I am not fluent, but from what I can tell the International qualification section on the page does a good job of summarizing them. Before the season began, some teams were already qualified. So, their finishing position has no effect on themselves but can change the fate of other teams. Argentina is changing the structure of the Primera Division next year, which makes this year even more complicated than normal. Now that I'm thinking about the league changing next year, it may not be worth trying to figure it out. Equineducklings (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: Those rules are quite involved, but if it will be easier next year, then I think we shouldn't worry too much about it. In general I think it would be possible to use a sub-template to catch these examples (which might also be useful for cupwinners in European competitions). @Qed237: did this for the old format in the Premier League template. For now I would want to focus on getting the module fully up and running, implementing dynamic colouring might make the code a lot harder to understand for novice users. CRwikiCA talk 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that something like that would be far down the list of things to work on with this, especially since it's something that can be dealt with manually. It's just not worth spending time on right now, similar to changing to the new format on older, completed seasons. By the way, I think it's working well on the UEFA U-17 qualifying article. Equineducklings (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be working fine on the U-17 article, which makes me think it will work well to convert current/future seasons down the road. I will work on the small suggestions in the WT:FOOTY thread and then take it forward from there. CRwikiCA talk 22:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Depreciation

I fixed the tags, Depreciation is not the same as Deprecation. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Results

Hi,

Seeing your work with the results table (next to standings) I have a question regarding the 2014–15 Svenska Cupen situation where teams only meet once but still has that result part. How is that solved in your template? Should we add the dash as score or should we modify the template so that if no parameter for a certain match is given then it automatically renders a dash?. For example match_AAA_BBB=3-0 gives 3-0 in table but if parameter is not written it is a dash? QED237 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: I wouldn't automatically want to add a dash, because it would include an em-dash then when people would forget to add that particular match, I would use the dash explicitly for games that are not held. For example for group 1:

Pos	Team	Qualification	MFF	JSIF	AFF	HFF
1	MFF	Quarter-finals	—			—
2	JSIF		—	—		—
3	AFF		—	—	—
4	HFF				—	—

First match(es) will be played: unknown. Source: ^{[citation needed]}

I would think that is the clearest way to show that each team plays each other only once. (Potentially with adding either vs. or game dates in there.) CRwikiCA talk 17:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Which league should I convert next?

I wanted to ask you and @Qed237: this question. I saw on the FOOTY talk page that you were encouraging moving on to higher profile leagues. I have been avoiding these because they are mostly all templates. While I am comfortable converting tables, I have no experience with documentation. As a result, I don't think I should be the one to convert the templates (at least, not at this time). My question is, which league(s) should I work on that would be the most helpful (or reach the most editors)? Equineducklings (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: There are many leagues to pick from, spread across multiple continents, feel free to work on whichever one you like. Qed237 stated he was going to convert the English leagues. {{2014–15 in European football (UEFA)}} lists all the European countries highest divisions, all those countries also have lower leagues as well. There might be some merit in coordinating the conversion effort, so people don't do double work. CRwikiCA talk 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I will look at conversion soon, just a minor question. Have any good idea on the playoff-table for 2015 CONCACAF U-20 Championship it has not been transformed even if marked as done. It currently use position as well as group. Should we skip pos and do as we have in under-17 page we tested?. QED237 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

How should we solve it? QED237 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Qualification and relegation

Hi again,

Just a quick question. Once again what is consensus regarding qualification and relegation column. I just saw the gibraltar league marked as done with "2015-16 UEFA Champions league..." and "Qualification to relegation play-off" as well as "relegation to..". Seems like a mix. What did we say? QED237 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: I think the consensus can be summarized by "When the season results (qualification/promotion/relegation) have more than one option, it should include "Qualification/Promotion/Relegation to (the)" in the rows. The season text can omit year, (con)federation, age group and gender in the text, unless doing so would create ambiguity; the wikilink should however point to the right season to which the team is qualified/promoted/relegated.". Equineducklings created these tables before the consensus was formed, so I think he just used the previous format for that. I updated that line in the league. CRwikiCA talk 15:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: Yeah, I just carried over what was in the previous table when I converted it weeks ago. I was waiting for consensus, too. To be honest, even after reading the conversation on it, I was not certain what the consensus was, so I didn't change it yet. There seemed to be a number of editors who disliked different aspects of the suggestions but were willing to go along with whatever was agreed upon. Thanks for all the work by both of you. Equineducklings (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In case it was not clear, I am still not sure what the consensus is on this. Equineducklings (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: I think the passage above that I included in the summary as well is the consensus based on what was discussed. CRwikiCA talk 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, as always. I thought that was it, but wanted to be sure because some of the things that have been marked Done were not like that. Equineducklings (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It will be hard with these things to have global uniformity, but having consensus to reference will help. CRwikiCA talk 02:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I did now update Template:2014–15 Eredivisie table, I believe that is according to consensus, both that table and documentation is something to follow when making tables and templates. QED237 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: Thanks, I think it will indeed be a good example to follow. Hopefully the new format will prove useful! CRwikiCA talk 18:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding same column. Seems like wording "Qualification result" was not good for |res_col_header= on UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying talkpage as result implies it has already finished so I changed to |res_col_header=Q which renders "Qualification". You think that will be better or should we use "result"? QED237 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237: That should be fine in my opinion. CRwikiCA talk 15:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Question re:new template

Hi CR, immense work on the module implementation. I tried my hands on it and while it is easy to create the templates, it worked for the first one but did not show the correct number of teams in the second. Maybe I missed a trick somewhere so kindly advise. cheers. LRD 01:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I corrected the table, it was just a minor mistake in the parameter names, where an extra s hade appaered for team10, team11 and team12 (teams instead of team). QED237 (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO and Qed237: Thanks Qed237; LRD did that solve all questions for you? CRwikiCA talk 15:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Qed237, CR - thumbs up for the help. It's been a hectic few days for me and small things do escape me. cheers. LRD 16:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Another question. For alternative points scoring formats such as 2003 S.League – where in addition to your typical three pts for a win, one for a draw, and none for a loss – the match goes into a penalty shootout following a draw in regulation time, where the shootout winners get an additional point on top of the draw point, and the shootout losers keep their one draw point. Can we create a template to reflect this? LRD 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: So in fact, you have win, OT win, OT loss and loss? I have already implemented that for Module:Sports table/WL OT, although there is not documentation yet. An example of its use is shown on 2014 European Korfball Championship (basically use |style=WL OT and add |OTwin_TTT= and |OTloss_TTT=). Would that be what you need, or would you need something different? CRwikiCA talk 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is similar, but rather than the golden goal rule and overtime (win/loss in OT), the win/loss is decided on a penalty shootout after 90 minutes, which should be reflected in the row headers accordingly instead of the factually inaccurate 'won in overtime'. Is there a way to modify the headers where necessary? LRD 16:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: I can probably introduce the option to use SOW and SOL instead, would that work for you? CRwikiCA talk 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: I created the option to change the header, simply set |shootout_header=t (or y, yes, true or 1 or an upper case variant of those).

Pos	Team	Pld	W	OTW	OTL	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
1	Netherlands	3	3	0	0	0	117	42	+75	9
2	England	3	2	0	0	1	52	72	−20	6
3	Russia	3	0	1	0	2	50	76	−26	2
4	Germany	3	0	0	1	2	44	73	−29	1

Source: IKF

For the internal options you would still use |OTwin_TTT= and |OTloss_TTT= though. The default points are 3, 2, 1 and 0 for W, SOW, SOL and L which would work for your example. Would this solution work for you? CRwikiCA talk 19:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That will work. Top work as usual. *Thumbs up* LRD 00:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I created Template:2013 S.League table and it showed up well in the main article and on a club season page. When I tried it on another club season page, it showed the message Lua error in Module:Sports_table/sub at line 37: Tried to read nil global ii_start. A similar message also shows up if I reverse the hth_BEI and hth_YLI notes at Template:2010 S.League table; I had encountered the same issue at other templates too. LRD 08:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@LRD NO: There was a little bug in the ii_start and ii_end not being forwarded. I fixed that and it should work okay now, let me know if it gives you trouble again. CRwikiCA talk 16:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

User removing module

In this season's Argentine second division article 2014–15 Primera B Nacional, a user changed a table back to fb cl. I implemented the module on 14 Oct and have been the main editor since then. The user who made the change is currently working on the 2015 Primera Division which starts in February. I was not sure of the best way to deal with it. Equineducklings (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: I reverted it, let's see what happens. It might be good to update the table to the current standings now. CRwikiCA talk 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I first noticed this editor when I was working on the table for the 2015 Primera Division (which is not fun because they decided to go to a 30 team league, for some reason). While working on it, I posted a message on the editors talk page, but did not get a response. I then saw there were no responses on the talk page. I guess that's ok as long as the messages are read. thanks for your help. Let me know if there is a template I can convert so you can get to the documentation. Equineducklings (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Some people wouldn't be fully aware of the change, but I assume they read their talk page. Obviously you are welcome to convert any of the template tables as well. CRwikiCA talk 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

When I converted the Ligue 1 table, a template was not in use, but now it is. So I went back and did the documentation for it. Could you check Template:2014–15 Ligue 1 table to see if I did it right? thanks. Equineducklings (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings: It looks to me that everything is okay. Keep up the good work! CRwikiCA talk 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: League tables

Hi CR! Thanks for the message, I'll try and do more conversions as possible. Have a good day! Arbero (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Points halved during season

This is something that hasn't come up yet, but will early next year in a few leagues. Some leagues require a new table approximately halfway thru the season and halve the team's points, but the team's records are supposed to stay intact. Is using |startpoints_ZZZ= with negative numbers the best way to deal with this scenario? Equineducklings (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WT:FOOTY about this very issue. I think the consensus is to create a new parameter, possibly |adjustpoints_XXX= which will be much more intuitive than the current |startpoints_XXX=. It will take some time with the holidays and other issues, but it will get done. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting problem to be sure. The main problem for the module is that the leagues keep the records in the table but halve the points. If any of the leagues get to that point soon, I'm sure it can be made to work with startpoints_=. Equineducklings (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Equineducklings and Jkudlick: I think using startpoint would be the best way to go. Because adding a multiplier to some results would make the code way more complicated for future users. If that works for you, then that's great. CRwikiCA talk 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ping

I noticed you said you didn't get the ping from QED. I didn't either, can't imagine why. I have missed others in the past, but I can't remember who did them. I will pay attention in the future to see if it's specific to a person or person's. Equineducklings (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed several times I dont get all pings either, especially when multiple persons are pinged. That is why I used several pings instead of all names in one but that did not seem to work either. Think something may be broke in ping template or function. QED237 (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume something is wrong with the ping functions then, because I sometimes see myself in discussions. But I haven't kept track of where and when. CRwikiCA talk 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2013–14 Feyenoord season

The article 2013–14 Feyenoord season 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:2013–14 Feyenoord season for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Module:Sports table/doc/doc

Why did you create Module:Sports table/doc/doc? Did you mean to edit Module:Sports table/doc? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I created it on purpose to be used as a template for multiple documentation pages when the table is expanded to include more sports/options, such that the central functionality documentation can be updated in a central place for potential future changes. The awkward name is because it needs to end in /doc for it to work properly. CRwikiCA talk 16:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Season playoffs

Hi,

I am working on some new league tables when I noticed differences in displaying postseason playoffs. Did we find any consensus for that?

The thing I first saw was that in the swedish playoff system, where team14 meets team3 from second league, the first league displayed "Relegation playoff" in table and the section in that article was also called "Relegation playoffs". But then the second league table showed "Promotion playoff" but linked to "Relegation playoff"-section in the first league article. I think it may confuses readers a lot to say "promotion" and link to a section that say "relegation".

Then I considered calling it "Allsvenskan playoff" (Allsvenskan is first league) because it is playoff to allsvenskan (winners play in allsvenska next season). After that I saw in English league tables it is "Championship playoffs" in Football league championships as it is only championship teams playing for a PL spot, so should that be "Premier League playoff" in Championship article because they compete for PL spot or "Championship playoff" because teams are from that league?

I dont know what to do and can not find a good solution. Should we call section for league playoff or simply "Playoffs"?

Also I saw that in Eredivisie you have the same playoff in both articles. Is that really needed?

And as my english is no good. Should it be play-offs or playoffs? QED237 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: It is a very good question, something I have never found a 100% answer too. I don't think there necessarily is one "best" choice, a lot would have to do with personal preferences. I personally would use promotion and relegation playoffs, because it indicates what happens (I then added a footnote to the Eredivisie and Eerste Divisie tables to clarify the format), but that's just me. Naming the section is a different issue, in some cases there can be multiple play-offs for one league, heading all that in subsections under a general "Playoffs" section seems appropriate to me (with the full format explained in text). As for the spelling, the article is at Playoffs, but a year-old discussion raises the inconsistency on the talk page. I am by no means an English expert, but I would stick with playoffs, because that seems to be most frequently used across Wikipedia. CRwikiCA talk 15:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I agree that in the table it is best to display "promotion playoff" and "relegation playoff". Just not sure about what to name the sections in the articles, but possibly just "Playoffs" is best. Do you think the same playoff should exist on both articles or is that not a bit unneccesary?. QED237 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Having the same content in two places is typically a recipe for discrepancies, so I would have it in one place. CRwikiCA talk 17:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A second question. Is there a way of modifying the with of the matches-column? In some leagues, teams may have four letters instead of three making different width for different columns, so a way to choose that width would be great. Also the columns are very narrow as they look currently, it seems like columns like "PLD", "W", "L" are hardcoded to width 28 in WDL submodule (if I understand code correctly), perhaps some wider predifined value can be used for this as well in Sports results-module with possibility to modify? QED237 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

For example 2014–15_Svenska_Cupen_Qualifying_Rounds#Group_1 the width is set to 50 (maybe a bit to wide) while in my table conversion at User:Qed237/sandbox#QR Group 1 the columns are not very wide. QED237 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be feasible to do that, I'll add it to my to-do list and will get back to you about it. CRwikiCA talk 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I implemented |match_col_width= for this reason and implemented it as example in the group 1 of your work space. Let me know if you would run into any trouble using this. CRwikiCA talk 20:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much that alternative is great. I am thinking about taking the liberty of changing the permanent number to something bigger than 28. I looked at the sports tables is league seasons and Template:fb r header that uses Template:Fb r width. If number of teams is less than 20 teams the width is 30. Also if fewer that 18 teams fontsize is 100% then it gets smaller and smaller. QED237 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Loooking at is some more at User:Qed237/sandbox#Header test. In larger result tables like 2014–15 Premier League I guess the width is okay but on my group example it should be wider so the parameter is great. QED237 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should also test and find a standard, like for example: 5teams or less = 40, 10 teams or less=30 and so on, but on the other hand it may be hard as it is used both together with table and alone. I am at least considering making Champions League, Europa League and others I see a bit wider. The bigger result tables should be smaller however. QED237 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The default width is now 28, which works well for three-letter abbreviations ins large tables (e.g 2014–15 Eredivisie#Results). Having the customization option allows for all the necessary options to tune it to individual tables' needs. CRwikiCA talk 15:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a final(?) question before I leave you alone. When updating swedish league system and {{2015 Allsvenskan table}} I made a header note in qualification/relegation column to say that cup-winners qualify to europa league (as I have seen on other places). This has previously been done with a note on that tournament, but it did not seem appropriate to have that comment only for team2 and team3. However now looking at 2015_IFK_Göteborg_season#League table there is a note and column header without any qualification/relegation (one thing we wanted to avoid). What would you do? Remove comment completely or have it somewhere else or keep?. QED237 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I am thinking about moving over to hockey soon and many leagues can manage on WL OT submodule as they get 3 for win, 2 for overtime or shootout win and so on. However NHL is special (dont know about KHL) and I cant see any good subtemplate for NHL, should a special subtemplate for NHL be created? In NHL like 2014–15 NHL season (and even better nhl.com) they often list Games Played, Wins (2pts), Losses (0pts), OT (overtime/shootout losses 1pts), Points, ROW (regular and overtime wins, not shootout, this is first tiebreaker), GF (goals for), GA (Goals against) and DIFF (Goal differential). Not a priority at all and I will focus my time IRL a lot now, but to you have an idea to use a current submodule or should one be created later? QED237 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I have left that note out of the {{2014–15 Eredivisie table}}, because I don't know what the logical place would be. I could make the qualification/relegation header hidden despite the note status when no rule applies to any of the teams in the table. At the same time, the note applies to those teams, because they might win the cup. I am not sure one way or another what would be "best". I know that @Jkudlick: also has expressed interest in extending the module to hockey articles. I still have to roll out a couple of improvements to the WDL style to the WL OT style as well. That being said, I think for the NHL, the WDL template could be used if the ROW tiebreaker row would be omitted, if it needs to be included then either the WDL style needs to allow for a "bonus" column or a new style would need to be developed. Obviously it would be best if the hockey project would be included in such discussions as well. CRwikiCA talk 18:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay no rush with the hockey. I can take it to the hockey project in a few weeks when I have the time to monitor discussions more carefully. I do think the ROW column is needed as it is very often used, it is like goaldiff in football, and supporters want goal diff in footballtables. But as I said, no rush take it when you have time. I can probably make the subtemplate on my own (as I have folllowed the coding all the way and have programmed in some other languages before) if needed, I just have not wanted to get in the middle of modifying "your" code as it is always easiest for the person that started coding (and some dont like others messing with their code). Just let me know if you want me to help in any way. QED237 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The ROW column would be needed in many leagues because that is one of the primary tiebreakers. However, that could also complicate the code to enter values because that could require up to six values (|win_reg_XXX=, |win_OT_XXX=, |win_SO_XXX=, |loss_reg_XXX=, |loss_OT_XXX=, and |loss_SO_XXX=). No rush on this particular subproject. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

More than NHL? I dont know any other than America that uses ROW. Also I dont think there is need for all those parameters just something like |win_XXX= (for all wins as all wins are 2pts), |ot_XXX= (for all matches lost in ot or so, 1pt), |loss_XXX= (for all losses in reg, 0 pts) and |row_XXX= (number of wins in reg and ot). QED237 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused about what the leagues track; only the NHL tracks ROW (as far as I know). However, the AHL and ECHL do track losses in OT and losses in SO separately, even though they both count for 1 point; they would need 4 columns vs only 3 for NHL. Other leagues also still allow for draws, so different hockey league tables will have quite a bit of variation amongst them. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Feyenoord Navbox

Hi. I live in Rotterdam. All navigational boxes for football clubs on Wikipedia bare the full name of the club. The full name of Feyenoord is Feyenoord Rotterdam. Just like the navbox for Manchester United reads Manchester United Football Club, or the navbox of PSV reads Philips Sports Vereniging, this one should read Feyenoord Rotterdam. Which is the full name of the club. Cheers (Subzzee (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee: You state you live in Rotterdam, yet your profile claims you are from 020 and that you are an ajax fan. As you know, the term Feyenoord Rotterdam is never used in the Netherlands and the article itself is located at Feyenoord. In addition, your comparison with Man United and PSV don't hold, both of those are listed as Man U FC and PSV Eindhoven on the UEFA website, Feyenoord is list listed as Feyenoord. For this reason Feyenoord is different and should not be listed as Feyenoord Rotterdam on the template, but merely as Feyenoord. CRwikiCA talk 19:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am from Amsterdam. Currently live and work in Rotterdam. The full name of the club is Feyenoord Rotterdam N.V. if you go to the official facebook and twitter account of the club it reads Feyenoord Rotterdam. Their crest also reads Feyenoord Rotterdam. I am not making this stuff up. This is the official name of the club. No one refers to Manchester United as Manchester United FC either, nor does anyone call Ajax, Amsterdamsche Football Club Ajax. They simply address us as Ajax. Same with Feyenoord. If you look around, you will find football club navboxes have the full name of the club in the title. In which case the club from 'Manhattan aan de Maas' should read Feyenoord Rotterdam. Groetjes. (Subzzee (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee:I can read the crest, fact of the matter is that Rotterdam is not typically added to Feyenoord. These kinds of additions are may be common for other clubs, but it is rarely used for the Feyenoord case. I realize you have changed this for other Dutch clubs, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do for the Feyenoord template. I also don't recall any discussion about this on the football project to form a wider consensus about this. CRwikiCA talk 19:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Official facebook page, Official twitter page, Official LinkedIn page, how do you figure the full name is not typically used. It is commonly abbreviated. Yes, I agree. Same with Ajax or like most clubs in the Netherlands, they have a handle. But of course the full name of the club is used. The club itself use it on all their official accounts on almost every social networking site, as well as on their own website. Cheers. (Subzzee (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee: I would treat this as WP:COMMONNAME, most coverage does not include Rotterdam, including UEFA, the Eredivisie etc. CRwikiCA talk 20:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not for altering the name of the Feyenoord page by all means, I think it should remain as it is. As Feyenoord. I am simply arguing that every single navbox for a football club that I have seen on Wikipedia from any country, has the full name of the club spelled out as the header. (It reminds me of the scarfs). I found the Navbox for Feyenoord to be rather exceptional in this case, and don't see why it shouldn't follow the same pattern and display the full name. There is nothing wrong with the full name of the club after all. But I will leave this up to you. You definitely have a stronger opinion about this than I do. But I do ask, please have a look around on other navboxes for various other clubs. Maybe you change your mind. See you guys this weekend in the Klassieker! ;) Take care (Subzzee (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee:I understand your desire to have uniformity and appreciate contacting me on my talk page about this. I will not pursue this issue beyond the Feyenoord template, although I have to say that using the full name can lead to long titles, e.g. {{PEC Zwolle}}. We need a win in de Klassieker, or the gap will become too much to overcome. CRwikiCA talk 20:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Feyenoord are playing well at the moment. If they play how they did against Twente, they will give Ajax a hard time. But both teams usually show up to play in the Klassieker. We are struggling in defense and a lot of injured players, with Veltman out, Denswil gone, (Boilesen might play this weekend, but he's been missing), and Feyenoord have been very aggressive and attacking and the players are in form. I'm a bit surprised. At first I wasn't sure they were going to turn it around, after many starters left post-WK. Ajax have a lot of new guys getting their first run, and I still wish Vermeer had not left. But we need to catch up to PSV. I think the win over Sevilla was a game changer for Feyenoord. I think that was the point when the guys started feeling comfortable in their rolls. There was a lot of pressure on Rutten and the guys before that. (Subzzee (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

They did indeed really manage to get things going good. Unfortunately they are still hurting point-wise from the hard start of the season with so many players leaving. Hopefully they can keep up their good play, because they can't afford to drop many point in the second half of the season. CRwikiCA talk 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well good luck! Feyenoord will get there sooner or later. The club is finally in the green, and clear of its financial woes. I want Ajax to win the title of course. That's not surprising. But Feyenoord do have some making up to do. It's been a long time since they have won the league. I just wanted to add about the PEC Zwolle and NAC Breda navboxes real quick, those clubs are legally bound to include the name of the municipality in the club name (unfortunately). Prins Hendrik, Ende Desespereert Nimmer Combinatie by itself would be perfect, because that is exactly what it is. Prins Hendrik Ende Desespereert Nimmer Combinatie in Dutch makes perfect sense. But I will leave you to it. Take care. (Subzzee (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

Let me just add that there are stickers all over the city that read FR TILL WE DIE and I am pretty sure the R stands for Rotterdam. You know the green white green ones with the Rabbit, you can add it. You are not from Holland are you. Where are you from? (Subzzee (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

I know some use FR as abbreviation. I can assure you I am from Rotterdam, even though I do not live there anymore. For privacy reasons I prefer not to disclose my current location (or many other details). With regard to PEC and NAC they do typically have their town included yes. I will not change the other navboxes, if contributors to those team articles would find it too long, they would change that in time. CRwikiCA talk 15:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Empty template name

Hi,

I am working on a empty table to be added to documentation for Module:Sports table and realizes that it gets a bit weird when leaving template name empty. I was planning on having the parameter in the "empty table" with a comment how to use it but currently it does not work when leaving no input to the parameter. Can this be fixed in module? QED237 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: It should be possible to only read it when it is non-empty. I will try to get it done. CRwikiCA talk 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: This should now work, let me know if you run into any problems. CRwikiCA talk 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Module:Sports table for hockey?

I could have sworn I saw you had mentioned that the module could also be used for hockey, but I can't find that statement. Is that true? If so, is it ice hockey or field hockey, and where could I read any documentation? I'd like to experiment with it since ice hockey is one of my favorite sports, along with association football and curling. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: I created Module:Sports table/WL OT and implemented it for 2014 European Korfball Championship for W-OTW-OTL-L. I didn't have time yet to implement it and I wanted to wait with writing documentation until the initial module (football, or regular W-D-L option) was rolled out a bit and all little issues were solved (so the relevant solutions wouldn't have to be copied to multiple forks)). It works exactly the same way, except that there is |OTwin_TTT=, |OTloss_TTT=, |OTwinpoints= and |OTlosspoints= instead of the draw options. Feel free to play around with it; let me know if you encounter any issues. I think the module would have evolved enough to call it stable, so I can introduce proper documentation as well. CRwikiCA talk 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see how it works. |style=WL OT would work in a league which specifically tracks whether wins and losses were in regulation or overtime/shootout, but many hockey leagues are either W-L-D (contrasted with W-D-L of most association football leagues) (e.g. the NHL through most of its history) or W-L-OTL (e.g. the NHL at present). Some leagues which still allow for draws but also award one standings point for an overtime loss thus keep track of W-L-D-OTL. Don't worry about trying to write new code for hockey for the time being; hockey leagues are presently in season, so trying to implement new league tables on Wikipedia could be too disruptive. (Besides, I'd like to learn how to code in Lua. It doesn't look too dissimilar to C++ or VBA.) -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkudlick:Yes, in hockey there a several different point formats used. I tried to design the module such that it is easy for users to introduce their own styles, basically copy one of the existing styles (either football or WL OT and this point) and adjust the columns the way you want and you're pretty much set. Most of the more advanced stuff is run from the main module or from Module:Sports table/sub. It might still be worthwhile to for me to organize things a little better to have proper documentation going forward. In hindsight I should have probably called the football module WDL, because that seems to be a bit more applicable and would not create exact copies for other sports that would use the exact same structure. A lot of programming languages are very similar, you just need to know the little things that are different for the syntax. Let me know when you run into any questions (not that I am a Lua authority by any stretch of the imagination). CRwikiCA talk 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Discussion opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive63#New standings table format. QED237 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Some other sports tables to convert

Hi! Great job with the sports results module. I maybe will have some comments, but currently I haven't tested it :) Was thinking, maybe you would like to convert this kind of tables? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And if you want to do some standartising work, then I have this. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 18:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Thanks for the compliment. At the moment I am a bit backlogged, so for the foreseeable future I won't be taking on new conversion projects. Cheers. CRwikiCA talk 15:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Asian World Cup qualifiers

Hi, I just spotted templates like {{2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round Group A}}. Any suggest of wording to avoid information getting so wide? "Advance to World Cup qualifying third round" should be "Advance to next round" or "advance to third round"? QED237 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: "Advance to third round" should suffice, because it remains the same competition. CRwikiCA talk 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Not sure know how to shorten the rest, and have to fix some food now. May take a look later if you dont want to look at it. QED237 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I first spotted them on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) where they had been included without any link to reach them (had to search for them). QED237 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I made some changes in the template, see what you think and change what you think should be changed. CRwikiCA talk 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks good, I like it. QED237 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Ranking table

Hi CRwikiCA,

I saw your edit at Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place) when you insterted the big red stophand to get editors attention. I believe we should not do that as I was told not to do so when creating Template:Livescores editnotice.

An editnotice is shown above the edit window when people has pressed edit (for example test to click edit at 2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase that has had issues with live updating) and I created one for live updating during World Cup that can now be used on several places. If needed we can find consensus to make one for this table also.

As I said there was a long discussion regarding the editnotice I created (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 86#Live scores, the next step?) where comments were made that the icon was to threatening. QED237 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Okay, very well. After every table people erroneously change it to include all games. Maybe an editnotice would work better, do you have the idea whether that works in practice? CRwikiCA talk 18:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I cant remember how much it works, most effective is to protect the page, but on 2014 FIFA World Cup were autoconfirmed users also live updated I believe it had some effect. I created an template for the livescore editnotice as it was used on several pages, if we try this time maybe a template is not needed we can add it directly, but we need consensus to add it. It might have some effect, the question is how much. QED237 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: It would only be used on the one article, so it wouldn't require an article. I don't know what makes people stop and read before changing it.. CRwikiCA talk 19:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is nothing that can remove this problem completely. QED237 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2014–15 Feyenoord season page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Simplified sports table

Can you do a sports table that only shows the rank, team, wins, losses, winning percentage and games behind? There are quite a few leagues that don't show points for/against/differential when showing league tables. –H T D 17:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: The setting |for_against_style=none with the WL style removes these. An example:

Pos	Team	W	L	PCT	GB
1	AAA	1	0	1.000	—
2	BBB	0	2	.000	1.5

Updated to match(es) played on unknown. Source: ^{[citation needed]}

CRwikiCA talk 14:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

How about also removing "Pld"? –H T D 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I'll incorporate an option to remove that from the WL style, I'll ping you once it is done. CRwikiCA talk 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Setting |hide_played=yes for the WL style will now suppress this column as done in the example above. (I did not incorporate these lines for other styles, because I think it is only suppressed ever in W-L only situations). CRwikiCA talk 18:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I don't think the omission of "Pld" is done elsewhere, just on leagues with PCT. A note on PCT, can the default be without the zero to the left of the decimal point? I've noticed that most leagues that use PCT omit this for the most part. Of course if it's "1.000" it shouldn't be omitted. Thanks for all of your work! –H T D 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Removing the leading 0 might be a possibility, but numbers would need to be converted to strings and aligned differently. I do not know what is most used (NBA.com uses leading zeros, MLB.com omits them [although the wikipedia article about the MLB includes them]). Before setting a different standard, I would suggest opening a discussion at Module talk:Sports table to see whether other editors have a strong opinions either way. CRwikiCA talk 19:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, NBA.com uses it, but MLB.com, NFL.com, Yahoo Sports and ESPN don't. Looking at Wikipedia, 2014 Major League Baseball season uses it, but 2014–15 NBA season and 2014 NFL season don't. If it will make things harder I won't push for it anymore. –H T D 19:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: Technically it is not a big problem. I think the harder part would be to find consensus for a unified format. The alternative would be to have both options available for users and not worry about a uniform format. CRwikiCA talk 20:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll do further discussion on the module talk page. –H T D 10:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sports table

Hi, would you mind if we make this change? I tested it here and it allows us to not explicitly pass these parameters to the module, but instead grab them automatically from the parent. I think we can do a similar thing to get rid of the messy #ifeq: wrapper, but can work on that later. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I second this. Yes, please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Frietjes and Magioladitis: I have no problem with you making these changes, I don't own the module and welcome all improvements to it. Please note, however, that there is no reason on that article to have the |showteam={{{showteam}}} |only_pld_pts={{{only_pld_pts}}} in there, someone must have copied that from a template. Check instead whether omitting it from a template would have it working for the template call in an article (e.g. Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group A and its call in UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group A ). CRwikiCA talk 14:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

right, the triple brace parameters are only needed in the parent, not in the child article (which transcludes the parent). once we make the change, we won't need the triple brace parameters in either. will work on it later today. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, great, it will be easier to use then. CRwikiCA talk 14:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

But it would work on old tables with the triple brackets? So we dont destroy older tables. Qed237 (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237, yes, of course. the logic is to (1) check for the parameter in the child and use it if it exists (and is not blank), otherwise, (2) check for the parameter in the parent and use it if it exists (and is not blank). if you pass the parameter from the child to the parent, then it won't matter which one we use since they are the same. hence, the old syntax will still work, it will just be redundant. Frietjes (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237 and Magioladitis:, okay, I now have working code if you want to take a look at User:Frietjes/2014 Cup (parent) with User:Frietjes/2014–15 Real Madrid (child 1) and User:Frietjes/2014–15 Olympiacos (child 2). two things to notice, (1) the parent sets |section= and the children set |transcludesection= so the {{#ifeq:{{{transcludesection|Group A}}}|Group A|...}} junk you see in 2014 International Champions Cup is not needed (but would still work, is just redundant), (2) the parent can set |showteam= and the children can set |showteam=, but the value set by the children is the primary with a fallback on the value set by the parent. will roll this out later today after some more testing. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Statusletters

Hi, seems like a long time ago(?). Anyway I have been working with Champions League and Europa league and has expanded to go through all league tables across Europa (currently top tier) and remembered something I have been thinking about. Last season, the status letter X was used a lot, but mainly in two different ways. Either "Team is assured of at least Europa League, but may still qualify for Champions League" (for top divisions) or "Team has secured at least promotion play-off, but may still qualify for direct promotion". Could this in some way be new statusletters, or should we continue using X?

The promotion part I see some use in a standard letter as it may be used by different sports for all future. The CL/EL one I am not sure since Champions League and Europa league may change names and it can only be used for football in Europe. It could however be made more general like "Team is assured of participation in secondary continental club competition, but may still qualify for the top competition" or something like that. Or a general text can be added with extra parameters like "Team is assured of at least para1, but may still qualify for para2", where para1 and para2 can be set in the table (called statuspara or something).

Just ideas. Perhaps something for when team may at best reach relegation playoff but may still be directly relegated can also be useful. Not sure if any of the current letters can be used. Qed237 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Time flies by, and I am limited in my Wikipedia time lately. Anyway, I would indeed avoid fixing status letter with links to specific competitions, because they can change. Do you feel using the wildcard letters is not good enough, or do you worry about overhead and consistency? CRwikiCA talk 15:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Consistency is one part as the note text may differ sligthly form league to league (even though I go through every league now and fix/create and monitor the tables seen at User:Qed237/sandbox#Domestic leagues). The other part is that since X is used so often now in every tournament and has different meanings for different tournaments readers may get confused, which is why I considered an extra statusletter instead of a wildcard. But I wanted more input since I am not sure. Qed237 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Having an additional letter could work if it captures a large number of options, which might not be exactly the case. The wildcards will still be needed, the question only is whether there are more general cases that can be represented as a single letter. Implementing that would be easy, as long as there is some ideas or consensus on what and how it would be worded. CRwikiCA talk 18:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

To me Team is assured of at least promotion play-off, but may still qualify for direct promotion and Team is qualified for relegation play-off at best, but may still be directly relegated. seems fairly general to me, but do you think I should seek consensus? Qed237 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Those seem general enough indeed, I don't necessarily think there would be much opposition against those options. CRwikiCA talk 15:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, a new thought. Krouja withdrew from Template:2015 A Lyga table, is "D" for Disqualified really the best, or should we also have "W" Withdrawn. There are cases where teams withdraws on their own without actually being disqualified. Qed237 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: I just got your message. I think these cases are so rare they don't need a status letter, it could be dealt with with a footnote and the text in the column in my opinion. CRwikiCA talk 16:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Only pld points in module sports table

Hi, in this diff if you look at AFC secong round (specially group C) editors are not happy with how information ends up on new row (both source and status). A editor tried to correct it with this edit and you can so below the table that it was no success. So I wonder if we should add some linebreaks in the code. Like 'if only_pld_pts (insert linebreak)' and do that both after the date, source and all included statuslettters, so they start on new rows? Qed237 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: It might be worthwhile to create an option to list the status letter in a column yes. I would leave it as a separate option, so people can choose to use it for specific calls if needed. I don't have time to change this now, but you might want to experiment for the main table module in the part that reads:

	-- Now for the named status
	local status_exist = false
	local status_string = ''
	local curr_letter
	for jjj = 1,mw.ustring.len(t_status.letters) do
		curr_letter = mw.ustring.upper(mw.ustring.sub(t_status.letters,jjj,jjj))
		if t_status.called[curr_letter] then
			if t_status.position == 'before' then
				status_string = status_string..'<span style="font-weight:bold">'..string.lower(curr_letter)..' &ndash;</span> '..t_status.code[curr_letter]..'; '
			else
				status_string = status_string..'<span style="font-weight:bold">('..curr_letter..')</span> '..t_status.code[curr_letter]..'; '
			end
			status_exist = true
		end
	end
	-- Now end it with a point instead (if it contains entries the '; ' needs to be removed)
	if status_exist then
		status_string = '<br>'..mw.ustring.sub(status_string,1,mw.ustring.len(status_string)-2)..'.'
		table.insert(t_footer,status_string)
	end

I would then

Create some input variable such as stack_status that would be set as yes or no.
Create a text variable which is either '' or <br> depending on stack_status
Add that text value to the string (note that it already starts with <br> for line 18, so account for this somehow.
Test this for both before and after status letter options

I think most of these steps have example in the module, I just don't have the time to rigorously test the implementation and update the documentation. CRwikiCA talk 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast answer and showing me the correct part with guiding. I dont have time myself at the moment, but I will put it on my todo-list. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully it works out. CRwikiCA talk 18:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I have now done these changes in module sandbox, if you want to look before I implement. The result has been tested and can be seen in User:Qed237/sandbox5. If you look at the last two tests (with only_pld_pts=yes) you see the issue we tried to solve with long text (that got weird text when multiple tables got put next to eachother like in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification. I did the linebreak for the source as well as it was also on two lines ("Source:" on one row and "FIFA" on the next. Qed237 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: It seems to be working fine that way I think. CRwikiCA talk 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Great, I will do some more testing and then implement it. The response I got from the editor requesting this was "this solves it perfectly". Qed237 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: Good work! It shouldn't effect any existing tables, so feel free to implement it on a short time line. CRwikiCA talk 15:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Volleyball

I have been looking at Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament and trying to see what submodule to Module:Sports table would be the best. Could use your opinion. Do you think I should create a new submodule for this case where a match is divided in parts (sets) which itself has parts (points)? We only have tables with points/goals and not when both points and sets are used. Qed237 (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I think it is indeed best to create a new submodule for this. Sorry for my late response, but I have been having less and less time to edit Wikipedia. I might soon log in even more rarely and go into semi-retirement. I do not know whether any other sport has this triple set-up, so it might very well be volleyball specific. Because the header is created inside the style, it might be relatively straightforward to replicate the "double header". It seems like the columns and rows currently miss scope statements (as required by MOS:DTAB to aid accessibility). The following table is a table with merged rows/columns from Netherlands at the 2014 Winter Olympics that I created before that did use that properly:

Athlete	Event	Run 1		Run 2		Run 3		Run 4		Total
Athlete	Event	Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank
Edwin van Calker* Bror van der Zijde	Two-man	57.54	=21	57.46	21	57.38	=18	56.95	15	3:49.33	19
Edwin van Calker* Sybren Jansma Arno Klaassen Bror van der Zijde	Four-man	55.55	13	55.57	15	55.82	12	55.75	12	3:42.69	11
Esmé Kamphuis* Judith Vis	Two-woman	57.94	5	58.10	6	58.20	6	58.03	2	3:52.27	4

Key: * denotes pilot of each sled, = denotes multiple teams share the same rank.

I think based on this and the other styles, it should be relatively straightforward to port the template to a module style. WP:VBALL does not seem extremely active, but you might want to open a thread there and see whether people have been wanting small changes in the table, but never knew how to change those things themselves. It's great you keep up with Wikipedia and are managing to roll out the module we created across the platform. Are there any other sports you are aware of that would need "special treatment" to be converted to a Module based table? CRwikiCA talk 16:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont mind "late" response, take your time. We are all volunteers and edit when we can and want to edit, and sometimes we also have to think before responding. I have not looked at the wikitable code how they built it yet, just the main structure, when an other editor asked me what submodule to use. Also, I am not sure if the "double header" should stay of if we just could have regular columns SF (sets for), SA (sets against) just like we have in other sports. I have been planning to go through all sports in olympic games one-by-one to see what styles might be needed and if some can use the same submodules. But that is when I have spare time from the other work I am doing so have not looked to much at it yet. One of the special things I noted in the volleyball case is that it looks like they changed the rules a while back and now they order based on "wins" instead of points (points is first tiebreaker instead) so we would have to bold an other column. Also volleyball has a weird point system with 3 points for a big win (3-0 or 3-2), 2 points for a small win (3-2), 1 points for a small loss (2-3) and 0 points for big loss (1-3 or 0-3). This had me thinking if we should have win and loss parameters and trust editors to use adjust_points or have parameters for big_win, small_win, small_loss, big_loss. Qed237 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Ah, yes, the strange points in volleyball, I forgot about that. I think it would be easiest to update when there are two win parameters and two loss parameters. I don't think most people would feel like manually adjusting the adjust_points parameter to "correct" the score (and ease of use should be the first priority for this). CRwikiCA talk 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I think that would be best. With volleyball being so special, it would probably be best to have a special submodule for that sport (like football was earlier). Or do you have an other good name for a volleyball submodule? Qed237 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I would just call it Volleyball, and index it under the "Sport or league specific styles" header in Module:Sports table/doc. If need be it could always be moved to a different term if any other sport would seem to use it. CRwikiCA talk 14:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout. Since you had some involvement with the 2014–15 Eredivisie table/layout redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for the WDL module

Could you add the |for_against_style=none value to the WDL sports module, like you did here? I need it for The International 2016's groups, which only uses points. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I am a bit busy to do this now. @Qed237: Would you have time to take care of this? CRwikiCA talk 02:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No rush, just something that should be done eventually. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93 and CRwikiCA: I can (probably) do that. I have some things to do right now, but I think I can find some time later today. Qed237 (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93 and CRwikiCA: I have now updated the submodule WDL and it should be working. Qed237 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Perfect, thanks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me if I didn't see this in the documentation, but is there a way to automatically order by points without having to reshuffle after every match? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I am sorry but that is not currently a feature in the module. The tables could be ordered in so many ways, sometimes by points, sometimes by wins and so on and then there are different tiebreakers. It is possible that me or someone else look in to it in the future, but currently the positions have to be updated manually by updating the "teamX" parameter. Qed237 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, it shouldn't be that big of an issue after the first day or two once teams get settled. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Great quick work! CRwikiCA talk 01:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CRwikiCA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Modules on the Dutch Wiki

Thank for your earlier comments. I'm not aware of the Lua implementation on the Dutch wiki, so I can't tell anything about it. I had already created the modules on the Dutch wiki (here, here and here), but can't get them to work. I made a template to try them out.T v x1 13:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I changed one templated to the nl version, which shows a table now. Some other template names might need to be changed simarly. CRwikiCA talk 03:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I can already say that they way how the Dutch Wikipedia works with templates is different from what is custom on the English Wikipedia. From the Dutch perspective the English Wikipedia makes things as complicated as possible, while on the Dutch Wikipedia we try to keep it as simple as possible. Therefore Lua is only used in those cases where it is really providing benefit, like when normal template coding is not sufficient. But above all, a template must be able to be maintained by the Dutch community. If a user has to go to the English Wikipedia, such is not an acceptable situation I think. Also we do not use navbar for multiple reasons. Further, if a simple table is sufficient to do the same thing, the template will be substed and deleted, as because if we can keep it simple, we keep it simple. Romaine (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot CRwikiCA, it works smoothly now. And to think it was such a simple fix. I can be operated on the Dutch wiki independently now. I will add the documentation to the modules shortly.T v x1 18:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I wish you all the best with the Module. CRwikiCA talk 02:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I have added most of the documentation in the mean time.T v x1 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm hoping you could help me with the Dutch modules some more. I have now successfully set up Module:Sports results on the Dutch wiki. However, I can't get the background coloring to work, as you can see here. Any idea what I could be missing? Additionnaly I can't get the notes (e.g. match_AAA_EEE_note= ) to work either. (T v x1 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've got the colors to work. Now only the notes remain.T v x1 00:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you get an error message or just no notes? Are you using the Dutch wikipedia way of generating these reference lists, is that identical to the en version? CRwikiCA talk 02:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't get any notes at all. I copied the template the module required from the English wiki.T v x1 16:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tvx1: It looks like I never implemented that for the sports results module and only through the sports table module. There are two approaches here: 1) implement it similarly for the sports results module (perhaps @Qed237: would be able to assist on the en version; although there might be some conflict in parameter names that would make it non-trivial) or 2) create a custom reference list and print it out underneath the table (the Special:ExpandTemplates tool on one of the tables with these might guide you to the code to use and assist in trouble shooting - there is an nl version as well). CRwikiCA talk 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Referencing help in module

Hi. I know you are no longer very active but I really need your help with Module:Sports table. There is interest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Module notes again for the possibilit to combine match notes, but I can not get it to work. I have been trying in Module:Sports table/sandbox and check results in User:Qed237/sandbox5. If you have the time, please help. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Maybe I have time in the weekend to take a look at it, but no promises. It might require revamping the overall note system, so everything can cross reference any other note. CRwikiCA talk 02:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I do not have time now to unravel the whole puzzle unfortunately, but I took a quick look. The issue is the way in which the references are defined and listed. For the match notes these references are stored in a list so other calls can call the same ID. I have copied this declaration for the match notes definition statement, but some of the variables are defined wrongly there for the match notes. I cannot go through everything now, but I hope this will get you started on the right track. It should be mostly a matter of setting the right names throughout, the team notes code might guide you there. I hope this helps solve things more quickly than waiting for me. CRwikiCA talk 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I seem to have made the sandbox version work. I haven't tested it extensively, so proceed with care to forward it to the live version. CRwikiCA talk 03:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: Just pinging you as well, because the original fb discussion is archived. CRwikiCA talk 03:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will do a lot of testing whenever I have the time. Qed237 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: Hopefully it is working now, sorry for the delay. Qed237 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

CRWikiCA, what do you think about the changes made when calling matches table. First Frietjes delayed loading (diff) with motivation delay loading of Module:Sports results which reduces the overhead when there is no match_table and makes "WhatLinksHere" more informative. I failed to see how delaying the call "WhatLinksHere" as it is still being called, so I inserted it in the if statement if matches should be shown or not. This shouldnt cause any problems? I am not sure what "reduces the overhead" actually means, so if you know please help me. Qed237 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Qed237, it's useful for debugging/overhead if what links to Module:Sports results only shows the places where the module is generating the head-to-head table. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theurgist: Okay good to know. However, did delaying the call actually help, or was my movement of the calling an improvement? It should not cause any problems? Qed237 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes and Theurgist: Oops, pinged the wrong editor. See message above. Qed237 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Qed237, if what links to Module:Sports results only shows the places where the module is generating the head-to-head table, then your changes didn't disrupt that feature. as far as I can tell from reading the code, the require('Module:Sports results') is only conditionally called, so everything should be fine. Frietjes (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Yes I added it inside a condition now, before it was called all the time and you just delayed it. I dont see how your previous edit made any change to the "WhatLinksHere". Qed237 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Qed237, in the code p_matches = match_table and require('Module:Sports results'), if match_table = false then require('Module:Sports results') is not executed. it's only executed if match_table = true since there is no way for 'false and ...' to be true. or at least, that's how I recall it was operating before. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Ah, now I understand. My mistake, a bit rusty since I haven't been coding for a while. Thanks for the explanation. Qed237 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I will change it back. Qed237 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Qed237, there is no need to change it back if you like your version better. as long as the requires is inside a conditional, everything is as it was before, but your version is probably easier to read. Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I seemed to have missed the whole discussion now it is solved. I would definitely value code clarity in these modules, especially because there is no expected base level of Lua knowledge from editors. CRwikiCA talk 03:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, CRwikiCA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fb competition templates Netherlands 2013–14

A tag has been placed on Category:Fb competition templates Netherlands 2013–14 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Something else

Hi again, since you're the initiator of module:Sports table, maybe you can read this some time: Template talk:2017–18 Eredivisie table.

And don't get me wrong, I love the module, I'm just not crazy about the documentation and the, in my opinion, illogical use of the module which is not covered at all by the documentation. --Sb008 (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sb008: This might be better discussed at WT:FOOTY to find a larger group of interested editors. There seems to be a large unwritten consensus in football table for the use of these letters, it is unclear what the opposing side in the discussion are. The model is just a tool for using the letter, individual articles or related projects should decide how to use them. CRwikiCA talk 02:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Fb rbr t pos Netherlands14/c

Hi CRwikiCA, I read you not very active any more and semi retired, but I hope you still read this. In Template:Fb rbr t pos Netherlands14/c, unless I understand wrong, it seems something is missing. There is no way to indicate the cup winner with an appropriate color. In the current season the cup winner is on position 4 (after 32 rounds) and for sure will stay there till the end of the season (round 34). Of course I could add a color for the rank of the cup winner, but that would affect all previous rounds too. Also, the color used now for positions 4 to 7, since 4 won the cup, will shift to positions 5 to 8. Also this I could change, but this would affect all previous rounds as well. Any idea (and time) how to solve this? TIA. --Sb008 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sb008: Better late than never, I think using 4* and 8* would do the trick, in combination with * (or another symbol) as a footnote explaining the cup was won then and the spots moved. CRwikiCA talk 02:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CRwikiCA, thanks for replying.

As I see it, using 4* and 8* doesn't do the trick. Let me be more specific. The table it's about is 2017–18 Eredivisie#Positions by round.

In the Dutch league, the following qualification rules apply (I'll ignore the relegation rules here):

#1 --> Champions League Play-off round (CLPO),
#2 --> Champions League 3rd qualifying round (CL3Q),
#3 --> Europa League 2nd qualifying round (EL2Q),
next 4 spots without a qualification (default #4 to #7) --> play-off for 1 spot in Europa League 2nd qualifying round (PO),
Cup winner --> Europa League 3rd qualifying round (EL3Q).

The Cup winner is the tricky one:

If the Cup winner ends #1 or #2, the Cup Winner will not play EL3Q but CLPO or CL3Q (a higher cup) and the CL3Q right will shift to #3, the CL2Q right to #4 and the PO right to #5-#8.
If the Cup winner ends #3, the Cup winner will play EL3Q (standard), the EL2Q right will shift to #4 and the PO right to #5-#8.
If the Cup winner ends #4, #5, #6 or #7, the Cup winner will play EL3Q (standard), #3 will play EL2Q (standard) and the PO right of the Cup winner will shift to #8.
If the Cup winner ends #8 or lower, all will be standard.

The colors used in Template:Fb rbr t pos Netherlands14/c are:

CLPO: #BBF3BB (also known as green1 in other templates/modules)
CL2Q: #CCF9CC (green2)
EL2Q: #CCF9FF (blue2)
PO: #FFFFBB (yellow1)
EL3Q (Cup Winner): not facilitated/implemented but should #BBF3FF (blue1).

Now there're are 2 major scenario's:

Cup winner is still unknown: things are as implemented now, #1(CLPO):green1, #2(CL2Q):green2, #3(EL2Q):blue2 and #4-#7(PO):yellow1.
Cup winner is known: Now the problem occurs. Let me be specific. This season Feyenoord (#4) won the Cup between round 32 and 33 (of 34). So as of round 33 it should be: #1(CLPO):green1, #2(CL2Q):green2, #3(EL2Q):blue2, #4(EL3Q):blue1 and #5-#8(PO):yellow1

The template however doesn't facilitate the extra color for the Cup winner, and in this specific case a shift of the color yellow1 from position #4-#7 to #5-#8.

Basically the template should have 2 color schemes, 1 for the period the Cup winner is still unknow (as it is now), and 1 for when the Cup winner is known. The last one would be quiet complex because depending on the rank of the Cup winner, the scheme can differ.

If I use 4* and 8*, I can of course add a footnote, but the color of #4 will not change into blue1 and the color of #8 not into yellow1. Both will change into grey (transparent).

And if you think the above is complex, have a look at this: nl:Eerste divisie 2017/18#Positieverloop per club, the Dutch Eerste divisie, where some teams (reserve teams) are excluded from "qualifying" spots and the "qualifying" sport are partly based on winning 1 of the 4 periods in the season.

Anyway, I don't see an option to implement the "Cup winner is known" scenario into the template. But then, I'm not a template expert. Only option I see is creating a LUA module, which probably will not be easy if it has to cover the possibilities of the leagues in all the different countries.

Maybe you know a way to fix it.

Otherwise it's probably either LUA or define the table yourself (as is done on the Dutch page. --Sb008 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sb008: Do you have a sandbox you're using to play around with it? The template is basically a switch statement, but it seems that you're limited to one entry per cell. I see that you might need different positions highlighted in general. I haven't worked on templates for a while, so I would need to refresh myself and see whether that statement can include a few more tricks to get it to work. CRwikiCA talk 02:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CRwikiCA, thanks again for the reply.

The way I see it, it's very hard to arrange it based on the concept of "Fb rbr t pos Netherlands14/c". It looks like 2 extra parameters would be needed. One for the season, and one for the round number. The round number can be derived from the (unnamed) input parameters. Needed because, as soon as the cup winner is known, a different scheme is necessary. Possibly not just one extra scheme, but even more. As soon as the Cup winner changes position, there would be a different scheme. The parameter for the season (year) is needed because every season it can be different. This season Feyenoord won the Cup at rank 4, previous season Vitesse at rank 5. Different teams doesn't matter, but different positions does. The year parameter could be derived from the page where the template is used (e.g. 2017–18 Eredivisie", so 2017). But, knowing that, I can't think of a generic way to define multiple schemes. Looks like the extra scheme has to be added each time the circumstances change.

So I tried a different approach. A note up front; I do know how to program, but this template syntax is new to me. Meaning, I don't know all the do's and don'ts yet. Also I can't find a full syntax manual and have to search for things bit by bit. So I there might be smarter ways to do what I did.

Anyway, if you can have a look at this: template:X16.

Disadvantage of my approach, more "complex" to define the ranking(/color).
Advantage of my approach, you can use colors for any position.

In case you read this at a time template:X16 already has been removed, I have copy on my system so can put it back any time.--Sb008 (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sb008: The easiest way is to use a user page, example: User:CRwikiCA/LuaTest. Use one for a test template and one for a test table, because it's not live it's a good place to experiment. The template language is limited. Some people would also argue that the position with colours would violate MOS:COLOR though. CRwikiCA talk 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, CRwikiCA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Modules on Dutch Wiki-notes

Hi. A couple of years ago I exported some of the sports results modules from the English Wikipedia to the Dutch Wikipedia. You even helped me a bit back then. At that time Module:Sports results did not include functionality to add notes for particular matches if desired. Since then that functionality was added. I have recently been trying to add said functionality to the Dutch Wiki's version of the module (nl:Module:Sports results) as well. So far I have been successful in adding the functionality to the module, so one can now add a note to certain match, but I have run in some difficulties with the displaying of the notes. I cannot succeed in having the notes being listed underneath the table as one would expect. I have been using nl:Eerste klasse A 2016-17 (voetbal België) as a sort of testcase. I was hoping you could help me out somewhat?T v x1 13:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedian

Hi CRwikiCA, I hope you're doing well. I stopped by your talk page to say that I really appreciate the work you did here when you were active. But you haven't edited in a really long while, so I added you to the list of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. If you ever come back, or just do not want to be listed, feel free to remove yourself from that list. Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: Thanks for the kind words. I just logged in, and may try to fit some minor edits in here and there, but life still prevents me from making a full return. CRwikiCA talk 22:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group A until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group B until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group D until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup Group C until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)