User talk:Qed237/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Module:Sports table

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Qed,

I'm asking you because most recently you worked on Module:Sports table. If you have the time and energy could you make some additions?

An extra parameter which makes it possible to display an extra column which shows the plus or minus points set with "adjust_points_<team>". Something like a boolean "show_adjust" or "show_adjust_col" with default value false so all current tables are not affected.
The option to set notes for values in this column.
Less important, a variable to set a custom header name for this column.

An example why I would like to see this, the Dutch women's football league. In the first round the teams play a "regular" competition. The top 4 of the first round proceeds to the second round. Again a regular competition, however teams don't start with 0 points, but with half the points obtained in the first round. Here the tables as shown on the Dutch and English page.

NL: Eredivisie 2016/17 table is not created with Module:Sports table but shows the column as SP (Start Points)
EN: 2016–17 Eredivisie table is created with Module:Sports table, the "adjust_points_<team>" variables are used and correctly adjust the "Pts" column. However it's kinda confusing to understand the "Pts" column at first glance without the adjust point shown.

This is just 1 example, there are more leagues with something like this. E.g. 6 teams proceed to the second round. The best qualified team in the first round starts with +6 pts in the 2nd round, the 2nd best with +5 pts, ....., the 6th best (or worst) with +1 pt.

Similar if teams receive penalty points, can happen here for various reasons, like a no show (in lower leagues), failure to meet license requirements within the time set, financial malversations etc, it is nice if these penalty points would be shown with the option to set notes.

One thing I haven't decided yet about what would be nicer. If the adjust_points variables are set only for part of the teams (mostly in case of penalties), what to do with the other teams. Put a 0 or blank for those teams in the column. Blanks probably would be nicer and if a 0 is desired explicitly define it with adjust_points_<team>=0.

TIA, --Sb008 (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

GAR review

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cesc Fàbregas, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Volleyballbox

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Volleyballbox has been nominated for merging with Template:Volleyballbox2. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2015 Latvian Higher League table

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:2015 Latvian Higher League table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

August 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So you are saying that Berlusconi hasn't sold Milan when he has? How is that controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14JeAgLeS14 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@14JeAgLeS14: I have said nothing about it, but when you make changes to a wikipedia article, especially a WP:BLP, you must support your edits with reliable sources. I can not know he has sold it unless you can provide any evidence. Qed237 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:2016 Kazakhstan Premier League Regular Season table

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, Qed237.

Can you help me with Kazakhstan Premier League Regular Season table?

Now in this table: "Rules for classification: 1) Points; 2) Matches won; 3) Head-to-head points; ..." and Tobol on 6th place with 8 wins.

But on oficial site and on UEFA site: Aktobe on 6th place with 7 wins.

Maybe criteria "Matches won" is not primary criteria from current season?

GAV80 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@GAV80: I will take a look when I have the time (very busy now), but indeed it looks like "Matches won" or "Goal difference" is not the first tiebreaker, but Head-to-head is. Qed237 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@GAV80: If you look at http://pflk.kz/rus/docs#league=2 and then the top left document [1] I think that is the rulebook. If I take google translate on it it looks like we should look at section 12 and then 12.6 to find tiebreakers. I dont have more time at the moment so if you could look yourself that would be great, otherwise I will have to do it later. Qed237 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, thank you for information. I changed table. GAV80 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, GAV80, I reviewed the changes you made and compared them to the Kazakh Premier League 2016 rules (that pdf) file. Your changes are correct, 100%. Keep up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimKaz (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@TimKaz: Thank you very much for the review! Qed237 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@GAV80: Good work! Qed237 (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Mens football in the olympics 2016 edits done - undone why ??

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi , I received you note on "one or more" edits of mine recently done,in which you in particular mentioned the edit on mens football in the olympic tournament 2016. What exactly occured to you the problem ? I simply filled in the files based on the results in the tournament ( actually just to make Portugal follow suit with the edit someone other already did with Nigeria) Just as Nigeria was at the time of the edit done, as well Portugal certain to end group play on the winner place in their group (D). Just furthered theese facts to be reflected in the templates ( flag icon, group winner name etc) of the knockout stage page, like I said, exactly like with Nigeria already fixed. Am I wrong in claiming that in groups of 4, when P beats A1 and H, A1 and H beating A2 dure the first 2 out of 3 rounds, this inevidable leads to P as eventually group winner irrespective of any results whatsoever in round 3 ? Someone other had infact already tagged Portugal with an "A" for 'advanced to next stage', and as according to the tournament rules, in case of equal standings pointswise the mutual results will determine the final standings.( which meant that Portugal could not be surpassed ) Why would you want to do the work twice ??Flight714 (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)