User talk:S.A. Julio

This user tries to assume good faith and hopes you will as well.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is S.A. Julio's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

A group winner cannot face a team from a higher league is about 'path formation', not about 'team selection.' The path formation is from League C to League A, but team selection is from League A to League C though it is not explicitly stated in the official regulation. Please see the team selection and path formation in the 2020 version.

There was only one non-qualified team in League A, Iceland, so three quota were passed over to League B. League B had one group winner and three non-group winners that has not already been qualified. So these four teams were selected and three quota were passed to League C. In League C, one group winner was already qualified so there are four remaining quata including three passed over from League A. Thus, Bulgaria, Israel, Hungary, and Romania were included. This is team selection.

Path formation is completely seperate procedure. Only Israel remained in the path for League C and Bugaria, Hungary,k and Romania were moved to the path for League A. This is path formation.

The principle 'group winner' should not face a team from a higher league is not considered in the 'team selection' stage.

If you don't like other user's edit, would you please improve it in a constructive way?, rather than simply revert it.

Your explanation is very hard to understand for ordinary users. I thinks adding an example is very useful for readers.

Your explanation is not only confusing, it cannot explain all possible cases. Let's take an example. Suppose that League C has two teams not already qualified, so two quota remained. Then the best-ranked group winner of League is selected. One quata still remained. Then what happens? According to your description, the team should come from League D which is not true. It should come from the 'overall' Nations League rankings. (Accdording to the Euro regulation Article 16.02. d. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regpath (talk • contribs) 10:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Regpath: A group winner cannot face a team from a higher league is about 'path formation', not about 'team selection.' That's not what the passage is saying, it is mentioning how you select the next-best team in the overall ranking, with the caveat that if there is a group winner from the given league, this team must be selected from a lower league.
• team selection is from League A to League C though it is not explicitly stated in the official regulation. No it is not, per regulations article 16.02 (a). I know how the process works, I wrote the 2020 article over four years ago.
• If you don't like other user's edit, would you please improve it in a constructive way?, rather than simply revert it. Your changes were factually incorrect, though.
• I thinks adding an example is very useful for readers. The 2020 play-offs used a slightly different format, though, so I am not sure how useful it is to readers.
• Suppose that League C has two teams not already qualified, so two quota remained. Then the best-ranked group winner of League is selected. One quata still remained. Then what happens? It depends on whether one of the teams is a group winner. If that is the case, the other group winner from League D would be selected, per article 16.02 (d), which says group winners of Leagues A, B and C cannot be in a play-off path with higher-ranked teams. If there is no group winner in League C, it would be the next-best team in the overall ranking.

S.A. Julio (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you explain this from your description?

"If the league has a group winner selected for the play-offs, then the next-best team in the overall ranking from a lower league will be selected."

==> Is it really 'lower' league? Isn't it 'the same or lower league'?

"f there are more than four teams available in a given league, draw which four teams will participate in the path of the league.

Remaining teams will be drawn into a path of a higher league."

==> My understanding is when the draw is performed, the group winners must remain in the path for the league, and only non group winners take part in the draw to decide who will be moved to the path of the higher league. Regpath (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Regpath: Is it really 'lower' league? Isn't it 'the same or lower league'? In step two of the article, it is already mentioned that teams are first replaced by the next best-ranked team from the same league.

My understanding is when the draw is performed, the group winners must remain in the path for the league, and only non group winners take part in the draw to decide who will be moved to the path of the higher league. This is usually the case, as group winners cannot face teams from a higher league. However, some scenarios are less clear, I'll use the 2020 rankings (below) for a hypothetical. In this situation, it is possible for UEFA to decide that one of Bosnia and Ukraine may/will be drawn into Path A, as they would not be facing a team from a higher league. Nowhere in the regulations is this forbidden, and per article 16.03 (c), UEFA may enact additional conditions including seeding principles for the draw. Since we don't exactly know what UEFA would decide in such a situation, I think it would be inaccurate to state group winners must remain in the path for the league. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

League A Rank Team 1 GW  Portugal 2 GW  Netherlands 3 GW  England 4 GW   Switzerland 5  Belgium 6  France 7  Spain 8  Italy 9  Croatia 10  Poland 11  Germany 12  Iceland

League B Rank Team 13 GW  Bosnia and Herzegovina 14 GW  Ukraine 15 GW  Denmark 16 GW  Sweden 17  Russia 18  Austria 19  Wales 20  Czech Republic 21  Slovakia 22  Turkey 23  Republic of Ireland 24  Northern Ireland

League C Rank Team 25 GW  Scotland 26 GW  Norway 27 GW  Serbia 28 GW  Finland 29  Bulgaria 30  Israel 31  Hungary 32  Romania 33  Greece 34  Albania 35  Montenegro 36  Cyprus 37  Estonia 38  Slovenia 39  Lithuania

League D Rank Team 40 GW  Georgia 41 GW  North Macedonia 42 GW  Kosovo 43 GW  Belarus 44  Luxembourg 45  Armenia 46  Azerbaijan 47  Kazakhstan 48  Moldova 49  Gibraltar 50  Faroe Islands 51  Latvia 52  Liechtenstein 53  Andorra 54  Malta 55  San Marino

Hello. S.A. Julio. Do you know why uefa link attendance v2 is not working as it used to? Putting v4 for example it does work. Do you think is a temporary issue? Island92 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

v2 and v3 as well have not been working properly since 3 June 2022. It's quite frustrating. I hope it is a temporary issue. Lots of articles use v2.--Island92 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Probably have been making some changes to their system, so most likely v2/v3 won't work again. However I can quickly fix the links using AWB, shouldn't be a huge issue. Should I convert everything to v4? S.A. Julio (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basing on the consistency, I'd like to have all these loads of pages with the same version. We cannot have some of them with v2 (which doesn't seem to be working) and other with v4 (starting from those of the Nations League 22/23). My answer is affermative and you can use AWB if it doesn't request time and effort. How much time before all of them present v4? Island92 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: I have not looked at this very thoroughly yet, are there matches within the same competition season that are divided between working for v2 versus v4? I also noticed v5 works for some reports, if this is of any use. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some Nations League 22/23 matches have v2 because v2 worked on 1st and 2nd June. The most recent have v4. For the rest, I mean if I reckon well since 2020 I've started adding v2 for European competitions. Island92 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Okay, for this season of the Nations League, do any of the v4 links not work? Also, does v2/v3 work anywhere? The links I have quickly checked for various UEFA competitions all seem to be broken. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

v4 works for every link you would try to make it work, which is a dream now to have every single page with v4. The majority of page you quickly checked use v2 because at the time I added only v2 as you suggested I should do it in a old talk which now I don't remember. v2 and v3 do not work anymore since 3rd June 2022. This is for example Ukraine v Germany friendly match played on 14 November 2020. In v2 it doesn't work, in v4 it does.--Island92 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Okay, so as far as I can tell v4 seems to work everywhere, and from this search it seems to appear on 204 articles, which should not take long to change with an automated tool. Should I go ahead? S.A. Julio (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eheheh, such an incredible quantity of pages, as I'd expected. The point is, will in the future v2 be working again? We don't know at all, hence yes, you should go ahead and get them all with v4. It works everywhere nicely. I don't know why UEFA made this change.--Island92 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: I doubt it will, a long time ago I had used v1 for some other projects, but it eventually stopped working so I switched to v2. Another idea is I could create a template, for example {{UEFA match attendance}}, and it could generate the reference, for example using the code <ref>{{UEFA match attendance|2034413|Czech Republic vs. Switzerland|access-date=2 June 2022}}</ref>. This way if the URL switches in the future only one page would need to be changed. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should do everything possible as we open these links they must work nicely at any moment, also in years to come. This template could be great.--Island92 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For all matches played so far in the Nations League 22/23 I switched all the links to v4.--Island92 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. About goalscorers in CAF 2nd round and CONCACAF 1st round, you have just reinstated the big lists, instead of splitting them into groups. Not AFC 2nd round, probably you agree that its list is too big (~550 goals and ~300 scorers), but I want to split CAF 2nd round and CONCACAF 1st round too - they are also quite large (200-300 goals and 100-150 scorers), not very readable to me.
2. Also some infoboxes removed - if I remember correctly, we have no strict rules about pages should or should not have infoboxes. I am OK either way, but when I split some goalscorers lists last October, consequently I needed infoboxes there for some details: goals, matches, goals per match, top scorer (previously available in 'Goalscorers' sections). If you agree to split CAF 2nd round and CONCACAF 1st round, then their infoboxes should be reinstated too. Centaur271188 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: Well we have CONMEBOL with 223 goals in a single round, so I don't see the issue with a similarly-sized list in these other articles. I think it is useful to be able to compare player performances across groups in the round, you don't get a larger understanding when it is split into 10 different sections. As for the infoboxes, they are intended for use on articles on competition/tournament articles. The round pages are subsets of the competition, but not a tournament on its own. This is the same reason we don't use such infoboxes on articles such as 2021–22 UEFA Champions League group stage. The matches/goals/top scorer information can generally be found in the goalscorer section. Also, the previous/next season links make little sense to me, given there is no permanent format for these qualifiers. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: By the way, I have been doing some work recently on older World Cup qualifying articles, trying to make things consistent with more recent campaigns. Since you are such a great contributor to the current qualifying articles, I was wondering if I could get your input on which zones should have their rounds split into separate articles. Clearly the 2022 OFC qualifiers were to small to be split, with a similar conclusion reached at this recent CONMEBOL AfD. However, I am not exactly sure what the threshold should be. Would you think any of the following zones require separate round articles?

• AFC–OFC: 1974, 1978, 1982
• CAF: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1986
• CONCACAF: 1966, 1970

Also, some of the OFC articles prior to 2006 were (partially) split despite being quite small, do you think any of these need separate round articles?

• OFC: 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002

Thanks! S.A. Julio (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your commendation :) To me, those confederal qualifying rounds only need splitting if we have much material enough - I think most campaigns you mentioned are OK to split, because some rounds of them have quite many matches, except 1990 and 1994 OFC. Or if consistency requires - like AFC 4th round, 2022 CONCACAF 2nd round or 2018 OFC 1st round - but I do not mean your consistency, I think the 80s-90s and earlier campaigns do not have to be consistent with 2010s-2020s ones, because of material difference. Only their internal consistency matters. For example, 2002 OFC 1st round is OK to split, 20 matches seem many enough. Then its 2nd round has only 2 matches, but can be split too, for consistency's sake. Centaur271188 (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright great, thanks for the help! S.A. Julio (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could this template have {{{organiser}}} (Organising body) and {{{other countries}}} (Other club(s) from) as extra labels. Example is Template:Infobox basketball league.

For Template:Infobox sports league if it could be done please. Alextigers (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is redundant to Template talk:Infobox sports league#Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2022. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 04:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not checking further before reverting you. I was not aware that the football boxes transcluded from the individual match articles contained section links. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, easy to miss! S.A. Julio (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Fact the match still ongoing when I applied the tool. Then I corrected but you had already corrected and I can't do the correction myself (and its no necessary to apologize on TP). (By the way I didn't do any problem about it because nobody its perfect). The only answer : misunderstood by delay maybe. The TV signal has 1 minute delay. (I'm not to blame for having 45 seconds signal-delay). Please only click on "Undo", it only takes you 2 seconds: and you don't need to comment on my TP ;). Remember that you have also made mistakes, and only the undo tools are applied, it is easier than commenting in the TP because it only takes a second and your information was never lost. Rey1996ss (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said before haha: the TV and the official site as well still showed a 3-1 (for that reason i click the tool; please discuss that with my internet company if in your country the match has ended. That not my blame). It's a little delay-mistake, remember: you have also made mistakes, that's what I'm explaining: it was only 1 minute delay and your information was NEVER lost. It's unnecessary comment in my TP because you have easier tools and they will help you because there is a simpler way. I explain the easy instructions below: Instrucctions:
1.- If you think there is an error go to the "History" section.
2.- Find the edition
3.- Click on undo bottom
4.- If you want you can add a small comment, example: I add reference or information has changed
5.- Publish changes (blue bottom)
I hope it helps you. Rey1996ss (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to ask about how you make lineups for notable matches on Wikipedia. I would also like to know if the template that you might use is open-source or copyright protected, which is why I see that you make the majority of lineup related edits on Wikipedia. If possible, also state as to which editor you use to create lineups for matches, so that it would be easier for the Football Wikiproject to grow further. Thanks in advance. TheWhiterCloud (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Nevermind, I found out how using Inkscape, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! TheWhiterCloud (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWhiterCloud: Alright, let me know if you have any other questions! S.A. Julio (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! If I have any other questions, I will start a new topic. Thank you for all of your contributions to this amazing site! TheWhiterCloud (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. @Pindrice.
Officially 4 countries already qualified for Paris 2024 (I added official IOC references). I think they can appear in the main article, if you want to help with this topic, please leave a vote Agree on the Talk Page (below). ---->Talk:2024 Summer Olympics
Thank you very much!

You are better editors than me, and you can contribute a lot to this. Thak you! Rey1996ss (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Pindrice being uncivil in edit summaries. Thank you. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Felix Robrecht has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources that are currently in the article are by and large all that can be found for this semipro - fails WP:SPORTCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the File:2022 UEFA Super Cup programme.jpg used in 2022 UEFA Super Cup is a book cover as you mention in the Licensing section? How do you know that is a book cover? I thought non-free book cover can only be used in articles about that book and not be used in articles about other subjects. Thanks.14.245.0.153 (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've opened a discussion here regarding your revert at Template:Country data China. Can you give your opinion on the matter? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Julio, I have some quotions reltd with that page:

1Would you mind to remove from that template: { { historical } }

2This list is very helful in terms of regarding notblity at Afd. Would you mind to create wieder tble which would also include 'seprate column for sources', 'separate column for "best achivement at IFFHS ranking of the leagues"' and separate sections for: 1Proffesioonal leagues at national level 2Lower divisions which are considered as proffesional 3Leagues at national level not considered as proffesional (currently thre is 1st and 3rd option but no 2nd)

What do you think? I would also like to very slightly change/update guidelines for notablity of football players but firstly I would like to correct this xtremally long (453 references) page, would you able to help me? It is very big. Cheers Dawid2009 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington Spirit non-playing staff has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Seany91 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Belizean women's footballers indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Bundesliga logo (2012).svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Also:

• File:Bundesliga logo (1996).svg
• File:Bundesliga logo (2002).svg
• File:Bundesliga logo (2002, 3D).svg

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bundesliga logo (1996).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bundesliga logo (2002, 3D).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bundesliga logo (2002).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bundesliga logo (2012).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Moldovan National Division managers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sørhaug (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes, I've seen after 1 minute.--Kirk39 (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. 2022–23_UEFA_Nations_League#Overall_ranking, for league B is not updated.[reply]

What do you mean? Are you saying the UEFA.com article used Wikipedia as a source? – PeeJay 10:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: I had previously added the man of the match winners for Euro 96, all sourced to RSSSF. However, the award for the RUS-CZE match was missing, though I found another source which I thought listed the official award winner (this ended up not being the case). In 2020, UEFA.com then published the full list, which copied this mistake (very likely from Wikipedia). I recently checked the Euro 96 technical report, and found it was actually given to Poborský. I can provide a scan of the relevant page if you wish. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's all good. Carry on. – PeeJay 13:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alexandra Grebenyuk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about former footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jonas Zickert has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jannik Schneider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:SPORTBASIC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinions as an editor regarding things relating to football on Wikipedia. I don't think Carol Ann Wilson, Janice Barton should be listed on List of England women's international footballers. Do you think a separate article as The Lost Lionesses should exist as they played at the 1971 Women's World Cup any input at Talk:List of England women's international footballers would be appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on group standings thanks for fixing Tomrtn (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it is certainly a unique qualifying system. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again my mistake I thought title holders for Nations League. Thanks for being on top of this. Tomrtn (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Sports table/WL goal points has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dominik Sollfrank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:NOTDATABASE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BilledMammal (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been created, but out of standard and not transcluded, either. Island92 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S.A. Julio. - just saw that you added Michał Listkiewicz as reserve referee for the EURO 1988 final, but in fact the reserve for the final was Aron Schmidhuber representing West Germany. You can see Schmidhuber during both USSR substitutions, and this info was confirmed to me by a private source. Hope this is helpful! Regards, Mikael. Mikaelref (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, regarding players' club affiliation - no longer than couple days ago I was bashed for not using citation sources, so I thought that the FIFA document will be the best source. I understand your point, however it's a bit vague - if a player was transferred, let's say a year ago, but injured his ACL and hasn't played since, he would be counted for a club he's not part of for a year - bit strange, don't you think? ;) Cheers! Red Devil (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Devil: Yes, if you notice in the lead there is a note, "This is the club a player was last able to play for during the previous season in the event a player did not play a competitive match". If necessary a citation can be added for these few clubs. This has been discussed a number of times in the past and is the exact format we used in 2018, the purpose is to accurately reflect the situation of the last season before the tournament. This is intended to avoid from listing the parent club of players who returned from loan a few weeks before the tournament, or have transferred to another club just before the World Cup. And while the FIFA document is a good source, there can occasionally be some errors that appear, so it is best not to rely on it for everything. For example, the clubs for Ellyes Skhiri and Cyle Larin are also wrong. By the way, while the statistics from the Cameroonian league seem to be lacking, you can see Ngom Mbekeli was playing for Colombe Sportive a few weeks ago. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is prefect for "normal" season with World Cup - usually players return from loans on 31st May (at least that's what most sources give) and tournament starts couple weeks later. However with Qatar 2022 it's different, because it's mid-season, and I wonder if it was taken into consideration. I wanted to say that Daniel Chacón from Costa Rica is perfect example, but now I see he returned to Colorado on 31st October, so this situation is clear. But still I believe this definition given in ihe introduction should be more specific to cover players I mentioned in the post above - although it's funny to see if someone injured would go to the WC :)

PS. I found error in FIFA document - Canada's Cyle Larin plays for Club Brugge, not Cercle Brugge as mentioned by governing body ;) Red Devil (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Devil: Do you have an example of any other players that would have a club discrepancy due to the mid-season tournament? Other than Chacón, no other players seem to have any difference between the club they are currently contracted to and the club they last played a competitive match for. So I am not sure any change in the definition is really necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio yeah, so far it looks ok. I don't have that much time to check every player :D Red Devil (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: I'm wondering about Sadio Mane situation, because it's going on and off on our squads' list. I believe we should delete him only, when he will be officially removed from national team's squad list - maybe Senegal won't do it, and therefore he still should be counted, although he may not play. Maybe they want for him to be with the team, as a good spirit. If he's not on a list, he won't be able to attend WC with the team. And looks like he's not out yet, because he's on FIFA's official team list: https://www.fifa.com/fifaplus/en/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/teams/senegal/squad. All other replacements are updated. Red Devil (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Devil: Sounds like Mané will not be replaced, and will stay in Germany for recovery. What FIFA documents say is not really relevant, as they only update the player lists if injury replacement are formally approved, which would not be the case here. If a player is no longer a member of the squad before the tournament even starts, then they should no longer be listed. There was a similar situation at the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup with two German players that withdrew injured and not replaced, as well as a Dutch player at UEFA Euro 2020. However, if there is disagreement, it might be best to discuss the issue at WT:FOOTY to gain a wider consensus. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio OK, I think it's not that important, but I'm tired of updating statistics every time someone adss him or deletes him. I understand your point of view, it's probably just the case what we count as "team's squad" - in the introduction a lot is explained about caps, numbers, last club played for, but we may missing the pivotal - what squad do we take into account - official submitted to FIFA, or the one that stays in Qatar - for example Polish team has 27 players, because additional goalkeeper is training with them ;) Cheers! Red Devil (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey its not important but wanted to thank you for your work on updating the wc squads today. You beat me on some edits I wanted to do :P MatsLP (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MatsLP: Thanks, your contributions are appreciated as well! Hopefully should be a good tournament. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS FOR YOUR WORK.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me again. I was trying to update Costa Rica match against Japan lol. Incredible job you are doing on covering the tournament 💪 MatsLP (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of these articles I created Draft:List of foreign Frauen-Bundesliga players, UEFA Women's Euro 2001 final, UEFA Women's Euro 2005 Final and UEFA Women's Euro 2009 Final? Also I thought I should mention we at least now know how many women have represented the senior England women's football team. England Women's player legacy numbers launched | England Football , England women: Legacy numbers introduced to mark 50th anniversary of first international - BBC Sport Dwanyewest (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwanyewest: The Frauen-Bundesliga article looks alright to me, though it would be best if all players could be sourced. The Women's Euro finals also look good, though the line-ups would be nice to have for 2001. Nice to see they've published the legacy numbers, hopefully they will add player statistics eventually. Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello. this match was 2 days ago. some users believe that match was not official in FIFA. what is your idea? i think it must be counted on players caps and result of Iran national football team. Miha2020 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miha2020: Whether FIFA counts it as official does not really matter, many other teams count non-FIFA games in their records. The question is whether Iran count it as an official match of their national team? Or do they only recognise it as a training game? If it is only a training game, the caps/goals should not be counted. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from Vietnam. Can you tell me how to create and upload a line-up image in Wikimedia Commons, please? Thank you. Mickey Đại Phát (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julio, I'm wondering why we have to wait to post the attendance until after the full-time whistle? Mwiqdoh (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwiqdoh: Well there is a consensus to not to add live match scores and statistics, I would consider the attendance part of this. If there is disagreement it could always be discussed at WT:FOOTY. A problem I notice is once people add the attendance to the match report before full-time, it then gets added to the infobox prematurely (before the match count is updated, which then outputs the wrong average attendance). S.A. Julio (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey how are you? I've noticed some discrepancies between the official broadcast lineups and the ones you've added as image in the articles. What's your source for those line-ups? I haven't been able to find those PDFs files that are usually used as reference for those things. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately FIFA's website continues to get worse, and they now have stopped publishing any formations online. I tried to follow the official FIFA TV graphics, but they seem to be quite error prone. I'm considering sourcing everything to Soccerway's website instead, which I think would be more accurate and reliable. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, but we should add the link as reference so it avoids any confusion. The previous World Cup files are within the digitalhub FIFA website, but you can't access it without being a member whatsoever... What do you think of sofascore as source? The lineup for Canada there seems more accurate than the other. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed several differences in previous matches (one absurd was Pouraliganji who is a CB listed as LF in FIFA line-ups). We should change them. I used to update some lineups in the past but lost the archives and softwares. Gonna help when possible again. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Personally I'd recommend the BBC coverage for formations on the field, that's what I've used previously for my football match articles. For example this: [1] - I'd imagine they'll cover every World Cup game. What think you, Julio?  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you check regarding the template and revert them back to former. I see that it is mostly the same anonymous user who has done it. Yours sincerely, Sondre 88.88.4.178 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SA Julio, thanks for your contributions for the women's soccer community. Now I bring to your attention a group of players from the Liga MX Femenil that need an article because they pass Wikipedia's notability rules at WP:FOOTY. Aylín Avilez and Magalí Cuadrado already played in their national football team. Bea Parra and Brenda Woch have caps in the Primera División (women). Chandra Eigenberger played in the Chicago Red Stars. Stephanie Ribeiro played in the Danish Women's League. Adyson Willett played in the Serbian Women's Super League. And the coaches Nicolás Morales, Ana Cristina González and Christopher Cuéllar also need their own article.

I would really appreciate your support.

Thanks in advance and my best regards! 200.68.183.48 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S.A. Julio, may i ask your help, can you make a Line-ups for the 2022 Malaysia Cup Final in File:Johor Darul Ta'zim vs Selangor 2022-11-26.svg. I want put this formation in Match details, Thank You. Reez95 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Benzema is still on the list and could rejoin France’s World Cup squad in Qatar. Sources: [2], [3]. Dipralb (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1950 FIFA World Cup group tables has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2019–20 UEFA Champions League group tables has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022–23 UEFA Champions League group tables has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2022–23 UEFA Europa Conference League group tables has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2019 Copa América group tables has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ava Mana'o, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Mana'o until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Italian Football Federation logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is saying what the tournament is now called "unnecessary"? Most tournaments that are renamed state their previous name so why not state the new name of the tournament? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.238.53 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the name of the tournament at the time, readers can read the main competition article for further information. This is consistent with other renamed competitions, for example see 1985–86 European Cup, where we do not also mention it was renamed as the UEFA Champions League. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA competitions group table mbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Olympic women's footballers of Great Britain has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crowsus (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:April 2024 sports events in North America indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:April 2024 events in North America indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Football Association of Ireland logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

You reverted my edit saying best to avoid excessive rowspan outside of first column for accessibility. Can you point me to where that's an accessibility guideline as I would like to learn moving forward. I've looked in a few places and I'm not seeing any relevant guidelines, but then they are scattered about quite a bit so it could be very easy to miss. The closest I've found is this, but that would apply to the first column as well. There's also this but I'm having a hard time understanding what it says. Gecko G (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gecko G: I'm not sure if there is a specific policy, though I recall from past discussions it is best to avoid excessive rowspan in tables. And given there will be a ranking formula, there will be likely different qualification dates for each team, so there should not be one combined cell for the date. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can see pro's and con's to either way, but I wasn't seeing how any accessibility issues significantly tipped the scale, so I was worried I was missing something.

As for the separate topic of the dates- wouldn't it be the date that the ranking is consulted/calculated/compiled? and thus be the same for all 8 of the UEFA non-CL winning teams? (presumably it would be the date of the first update of the UEFA Club Coefficient after the conclusion of the fourth UEFA Champions League within the cycle)

I've not seen anything saying it's the top x# ranked teams per year not otherwise qualified (and if it was we'd already have last years entrants determined).

Gecko G (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]