Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Spain task force

Segunda División 2008-09

If the WikiProject Football/Spain task force supports all Spanish clubs, leagues and competitions and associated articles (such as the Segunda División or Liga Adelante) could you please state in the discussion page of the Segunda División 2008-09 that the Spain Task Force supports this article? Thank you! Qampunen (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Segunda División 2007/2008

If the WikiProject Football/Spain task force supports all Spanish clubs, leagues and competitions and associated articles (such as the Segunda División or Liga BBVA) could you please state of the discussion page of the Segunda División - 2007-08 that the Spain Task Force supports this article and include a rating? Thank you! Qampunen (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, can anybody tell me this is not working properly,

Football in Spain articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	3	1			5
FL		1	7			8
GA	5	28	13			46
B	47	78	36			161
C	36	358	317			711
Start	32	1,809	3,305		34	5,180
Stub	1	2,214	6,161		527	8,903
List	1	4	135			140
Category				1,846		1,846
File				686		686
Portal				1		1
Redirect				99		99
Template				433		433
NA				4		4
Assessed	123	4,495	9,975	3,069	561	18,223
Unassessed					5	5
Total	123	4,495	9,975	3,069	566	18,228

. --Sunderland06 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this whilst preparing some code for the template. The template uses two differing forms,

For the 'this article is supported by' - it uses {{#if:{{{Spain|}}}|

For the actual assessment area - it uses {{#if:{{{spain|}}}|

The template is case-sensitive, so if you've tagged articles with Spain=yes then the template will have displayed the correct image and tag but not have placed the articles in the categories. I would suggest that you decide on lower or upper case and request an edit to the template. Nanonic (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since this taskforce page and the template documentation use Spain (and not spain) i'll recommend it for you now. Nanonic (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Brakes on) no I won't. You have more than one category structure for your assessment. {{football}} is using 'Spain football' as it's topic but the statistics you've linked above are using 'Football in Spain'. That would be another stalling point. You need to choose between Category:WikiProject Football in Spain articles and Category:Spanish football articles and make sure the correct one is in the talkpage template (and possibly list the other for deletion). Nanonic (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the {{football}} template to use Football in Spain, the statistics will populate automatically over the next couple of weeks. Nanonic (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Football in Spain

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BDFutbol

The site bdfutbol.com is used in a lot of Spanish articles. Does it meet WP:RS ? Sandman888 (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

List AfD

Please note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles re List of football players with domestic, continental and world titles. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this. Ben MacDui 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

I have nominated List of FC Barcelona seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Football/Spain task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Spain task force/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

About Regional Football Teams

I noticed, after looking at the Andalusia autonomous football team, that most of the teams representing regions in Spain are called " ---- autonomous football team". This is ambiguous and confusing. The direct translation from Spanish into English simply does not work in this context. The present titles give the impression that the teams are autonomous, meaning self-governing and independent, which they are not.

It might be much clearer if these teams were referred to as "regional", thus Andalusia Regional Football Team immediately gives a clearer meaning to the title for most English speakers who may not be familiar with the concept of autonomous regions in Spain. The titles of regional teams which have 'national' in their title are even more confusing and seem to carry a political message that is to be regretted in the context of Wikipedia. Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia are certainly not sporting nations (no validity in the World cup, European cup or the Olympic Games, for example) and for the purposes of sport in Wikipedia should be regarded as regions. The article about football representing Aragon is called the Aragon official football team, very odd, as though there are several and this is the 'official' one. I would be interested to hear what others think about this. Richard Avery (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Avery: It would be better if you notice somebody, nobody enters here that much. Although I feel that the "autonomous" is unnecessary, I do understand why it appears in these pages. The "autonomous" comes from "autonomous regions", which Spain has a lot (and in your message you already explained why the suffix is needed). The Aragon one should be moved to autonomous too, there are some needs of standardizing here and if some region is out of this, we should fix it.

I don't think they carry "political messages". It's just the way it is called. And "Spanish football team" or "Catalonia football team", to me, is ugly. The "national" (and the "autonomous" too) give the article name a bit of class, IMO. Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 03:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Record pages :

I have been working for time over the record page of Barcalona's team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FC_Barcelona_records_and_statistics

my plan is to work after this over Real Madrid page and then Spanish football page(because it is gonna be way easier to do this after finishing real and barca pages. ) so please check it , there are few records i couldn't find a source for it so i left it marked there . and if anyone has a suggestion please let me know . thank you all Adnan (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

1997–98 La Liga

this article needs revision urgently, if they are able they will do so fast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.35.182 (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

1945-46 la liga bbva

this article needs revision urgently, if they are able they will do so fast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.35.182 (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Spain task force/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Football.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Football, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Templates about year in Spanish football

Hello. A user is changing all templates about year in Spanish football. [1] Do you agree with the change? Xaris333 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: No. Take Template:1980–81 in English football and Template:1980–81 in German football as examples. Both list the European competitions. @Woodensuperman, your input is requested here. MYS77 ^✉ 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And Template:1980–81 in Scottish football, Template:1984–85 in Italian football, Template:2008–09 in Romanian football, Template:2011–12 in Russian football, Template:2006–07 in Serbian football and many, many others templates as examples. Xaris333 (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• There are multiple issues here:

1. Linking to other templates. This should not be done. This takes the user out of mainspace, and into template space. This is not where a reader expects to be.
2. We shouldn't have redlinks in navigation templates. If it is a redlink, it doesn't aid navigation, which is the sole purpose of a navbox. The same way we don't have redlinks in "See also" sections. WP:WTAF.
3. Listing competitions which are not directly related to the football season for that country of that year. The UEFA cup or similar of that year is only tangentially related to the country. Because a team from the country in question happened to play in the tournament does NOT make it relevant or suitable for navbox inclusion.

I think that's all the issues, but Xaris333 also keeps adding article categories to these navboxes, which is against WP:CAT#T. Only template categories should be added. --woodensuperman 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest change of venue. User opened up the same discussion in multiple places - would suggest discussion is centralised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Templates about year in Spanish football as this is not specifically about Spanish templates. --woodensuperman 08:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman:, as there's no consensus over it, we should stick to the original formatting (i.e. German, Croatian, Italian and Russian season templates). A red link is useful per WP:RED, as all those pages are relevant to Spanish football at all. However, I agree with your input that European competitions should not be included in these season articles. @Xaris333:, any opinions? MYS77 ^✉ 15:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion in guidelines

I was thinking of including in the "guidelines" section the following:

A) Standardization of season to season tables:

1. For active senior clubs: 20x20 seasons each, divided by two columns. Both must contain the rows: Season, Tier, Division (always abbreviated), Place and Copa del Rey (i.e. UD Almería, Gimnàstic de Tarragona). If an active club does not reach the 20 seasons yet, it should be listed in a single column (i.e. SFC Minerva);
2. For defunct senior clubs: same as active senior clubs, but if the number of seasons reach less than 40 (20x20), a counting should be done and the division should reflect the correct number of seasons (i.e. CD Fuengirola, UD Fuengirola). If the number of remaining seasons reach less than twelve (6x6), it should be listed in a single column;
3. For active reserve teams: 20x20 seasons each, divided by two columns. Both must contain the rows: Season, Tier, Division (always abbreviated) and Place. If the reserve team was created before 1991, the team should be treated as farm team (i.e. Real Madrid Castilla, Real Valladolid B). If the team was an independent club before turning into a reserve team, then the spell should be divided properly (i.e. CD Vitoria, Celta de Vigo B);
4. For defunct reserve teams: same as defunct senior clubs, with the considerations of active reserve teams (i.e. UDA Gramenet B);
5. All pages should carry the following colour pattern:

Tier (before 1977)	Tier (after 1977)
1	1
2	2
3	3
4	4
5	5
6	6
7	7
8	8
—	9

Note: The colour pattern is established according to the creation of Segunda División B in 1977.

B) Standardization of categories:

1. All team pages should have their categories reviewed and properly divided by region. If the region's category does not exist, it should be created;
2. Every defunct reserve team should not carry the category Category:Spanish reserve football teams;
3. If a team holds an affiliation to another club which have a category (i.e. CD Vitoria and SD Eibar), the main club's cat should exist in the affiliated club's article.

What do you guys think about these standards, @Crowsus, @Asturkian, @The Almightey Drill, @Quite A Character? I've listed only you in this discussion because you seem to be the most active users when it comes to Spanish football. Feel free to add more items to it and/or give any suggestions to improve the project. MYS77 ^✉ 15:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up, User:MYS77, but i'm the least-wanted user to go to in these matters, i'm so dumb regarding these technicalities :( --Quite A Character (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Hi, MYS77. My two cents:

A: I agree with the colors, despite it seems colors of tiers 3 and 4 are relatively similar. Don't know if that's true or if it's my poor capacity for distinguish some colors.

B: Agree with 1 and 3, but I think despite defunct, reserve teams are always reserve. Specially the "B" teams.

Cheers. Asturkian (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Asturkian: The tier 3 is bronze, while the tier 4 is orange... They're a bit similar, but it's because Segunda B was created later. Ah, and not having the category is something that I honestly wished to discuss with you all, because once I've created some reserve team page, I added this cat and it was removed shortly after... So, I don't know, what do you all think?

And about the 20x20 season to season format, are you okay with that? Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 19:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@MYS77: Yeah, it's perfect as now. Initially I was doing it in three columns because looks better at my PC, but I understand for the vast majority of computers two columns is OK. Asturkian (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

All sounds fine to me, thanks for the shout and for the explanations. Crowsus (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks guys, I'll add it to the project page now :) MYS77 ^✉ 21:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• The colours you have here are not compatible with MOS:COLORS, especially the ones with blue wikilink text on orange, brown and dark green background, so this was accepted without any regard to the accessibility manual of style, not to mention that every single club would then also need a "Key" for colours - etc. Gold background = La Liga, Silver background = Segunda etc., otherwhise it might be confused that gold background = winners, silver background = runners-up. Something like, I don't know, at Shanghai Port F.C.#Season-by-season rankings for example, where the "Key" at the bottom explains that light yellow = 2nd division, green = first division. Regarding "20 x 20" tables rule - that's absurd as well, so if some club would have 42 seasons, would you then include a separate new table for just two entries instead of just making it 21 x 21? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snowflake91, I don't see how it's confusing when we are clearly establishing a "divisional" pattern, which is unrelated to the winners/runners-up thing. Maybe changing the gold in division one to the same colour of C-class colour, and the silver one to the File colour? I've tweaked the colours a bit to comply with the MOS, check it out to see if that's OK...

About the 20x20 rule, I believe it's the best since if we don't do this, people would add a single table to teams like Deportivo de La Coruña which have nearly 100 seasons. What's your input on this, @Crowsus, @Asturkian, @The Almightey Drill. @Santiago Claudio? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Colour pattern of the divisions throughout the years

Tier (before 1977)	Tier (1977–2021)	Tier (after 2021)
1	1	1
2	2	2
3	3	3
4	4	4
5	5	5
6	6	6
7	7	7
8	8	8
9	9	9
—	10	10
—	—	11

Notes

It's fine with the black or white text, but if you include the Wikilink for the season, then the text would be dark blue, and it's not okay anymore. See how it would like with a link:

1977–78

1977–78

1977–78

1977–78

In this case, only the third one is really fine (EBC79E). The blue wikitext is simply too dark on such a dark backgrounds, and this can cause accessibility problems. Use the following a little bit lighter colours instead, they should be fine, or at least much better.

1977–78

1977–78

1977–78

1977–78

Snowflake91 (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure... But what about the other points? The reply makes sense to you (the 20x20 rule and the colours of the first and second divisions)? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The tables should be done according to common logic, not enforced by rules like that. Yes, its fine if you have 5 tables for 100 seasons, because the last (5th) table also includes 14 entries already (Deportivo). But on the other hand, if there would be only 1 or 2 "excessive" seasons, they should not be put into own extra table, but simply make it 21x21 or 22x22 until there are enough season to warrant another table. Also, switch from "silver" to "D3D3D3", like that

1977–78 (current)

1977–78 (proposed)

38d499 green variation (8th tier in "after 2021" table) is also not good, and I can't find a better colour in that green shade to replace it. Maybe B0EED7? It looks like light blue, but it's supposed to be a "mint green".

1977–78 (current)

1977–78 (proposed)

Snowflake91 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Snowflake91: Agreed... But we must establish a minimum amount of rows to create a new one... So it shouldn't be based on each one's opinion. Maybe the minimum would be 20x20 and the maximum would be 24x24, because 8 rows in a new table is valid enough, right? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Then, the acceptable colour scheme would be like this, right? Plus, since all colours seem a bit "dim", I've changed gold from tier 1 to a gold-ish yellow to comply with the other colours. So, no more opinions over it? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Colour pattern of the divisions throughout the years

Tier (before 1977)	Tier (1977–2021)	Tier (after 2021)
1	1	1
2	2	2
3	3	3
4	4	4
5	5	5
6	6	6
7	7	7
8	8	8
9	9	9
—	10	10
—	—	11

Notes

If no one replies, there's no way we can actually change the guideline... No opinions, @Snowflake91, @Crowsus, @Asturkian, @The Almightey Drill. @Santiago Claudio? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could this possibly be improved?

...by people who know football jargon and follow the schedule?

The original author doesn't seem keen on adding clarifications. And there is time limit of 3 days altogether including the draft review.

Thank you in advance. --Gryllida (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New color in pattern

Hello,

I've added a new color to the pattern table to be related to [proposed] Segunda División B Pro, a new division that will start up in 2021. I chose a "light bronze" color to keep up the pattern and don't make that much changes into the club's pages, but if you think the color is not good, you can start a discussion here and we'll reach a consensus :) MYS77 ^✉ 19:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Spanish federation named this new third level as Primera División RFEF 2 days ago. Light bronze is not good, discard it, keep third level bronze. Santiago Claudio (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

If I had to choose, I prefer keeping the current level-3 color (current Segunda B) to the new Segunda RFEF that will be level 4 and the level-4 (current Tercera) for the new Tercera RFEF (next level 5). I mean, only thinking a new color for the new third tier (Primera RFEF). Asturkian (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Santiago Claudio: It goes away from the pattern already created. Tercera División always had an orange-type color even when it was the third tier. I'm trying to keep the pattern, in a way where it won't require editing all teams' season-to-season section. @Asturkian: yeah, but what color? Claudio is not agreeing on the light bronze, which is the only one I thought it could fit better to maintain this pattern. What color do you suggest then, Claudio? MYS77 ^✉ 15:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some kind of light blue (lighter than level 5/6}? Or a light purple? Would those meet MOS standards for accessibility (do any of the tables - I think colour blind people might see level 3/4 the same colour as level 7/8? ) [edit:] Hadn't seen the light bronze on the project page before posting but that looks OK to me as well, to be honest. Crowsus (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Yeah, I chose this colour because it may be OK in the MOS (I don't get it that much TBH), and it's still using a sequence to gold / silver / (light) bronze, kind of a podium... Let's wait for the other guys' opinions. MYS77 ^✉ 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I like it. It continues the sequence and respects the color of the 2ªB for the new 2ª RFEF, that is going to be played in a similar format. Asturkian (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Season to season in reserve teams

There are some teams, e.g. CF Peralada, that are only reserve teams during a few number of years. I think it is not the best way to keep the season-by-season tables as currently. Do you have any idea for improving it? Asturkian (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asturkian: I think if we join them all into one, it'll be confusing. What do you propose? MYS77 ^✉ 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@MYS77: Maybe, in cases as Peralada, this could be a solution. Asturkian (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Season	Tier	Division	Place	Copa del Rey
1928-1970	—	Regional	—
1970/71	6	2ª Reg.	12th	(Reserve)

@Asturkian: Maybe, but it's a little strange, don't you think? What about:

Season	Tier	Division	Place	Copa del Rey
1928-1970	—	Regional	—
1970/71	6	2ª Reg.	12th	N/A

Of course, we wouldn't actually make this on 1970/71, because reserve teams were allowed to play in the Copa del Rey until 1991. MYS77 ^✉ 02:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's ok. Asturkian (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asturkian: Added in 3.1.1. at the main page, plus updated it on Peralada's article. It really looks better than having those columns splitting the years. MYS77 ^✉ 20:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discussion relevant to this task force - Benidorm CF

Notice: There is a discussion at Talk:Benidorm CF#Should this page cover the current team, the past team(s), or all 3? What should its title be? relevant to this task force. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional"

Hello English speaking friends, I'm new as an editor at The English Wikipedia and I want to introduce myself, I'm Araceli G. and I work for LaLiga. I will try to provide all the objective data about this Spanish competition.
LaLiga is making an effort to use the appropriate denomination. The official statutes, in its chapter 1 and article 1, establish the official denomination as "Liga Nacional de Futbol Profesional".https://assets.laliga.com/assets/2020/07/23/originals/b9314591e0726340127ba1420a92713a.pdf
The name "Liga de Fútbol Profesional" was abandoned in 2015, and its acronym "LFP" has been widely used in the media and is incorrect and confusing because it is the same acronym as the French league, which is officially called "LFP". Therefore, we are trying to ensure that the correct names are applied: either "LaLiga" or "la liga" or "Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional". This is going to be my main work in Wikipedia, and what we want to defend from this sports institution.
Thank you all for your cooperation and understanding,--AraceliLaLiga (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)