User talk:Chanheigeorge

This user may have left Wikipedia. Chanheigeorge has not edited Wikipedia since 13 December 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2019 FIFA Club World Cup. Since you had some involvement with the 2019 FIFA Club World Cup redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kashiwa Soccer Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chiba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the Pre-Draw Schedule is still necessary ? Several equivalent articles I've seen seem to have this only until the draw is made, or remove it when the group matches start. There is nothing that puts this into context now with respect to the Match numbering : what now does 1 v 4, 3 v 2 mean for each group? It is not possible to determine now from this article who was originally 1, who was 2 etc. Also the information on the Dates is displayed clearly in the Group Stage section, and in some cases the actual match days deviates from the nominal (pre-draw) date. It appears to me that within such a long article, this section is now irrelevant and in and of itself non-notable (although it definitely was pre-draw). Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as though the competition proper will begin in late 2019, and it could possibly go into 2020, so if this turns out to be the case should the article be renamed 2019–20 CONCACAF Nations League (along with the qualifying article matching the parent's name)? And I imagine the qualifying round is only for the inaugural edition, but it should all be clear on Wednesday. And for the entrants table, per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone shouldn't be used to mark differences in text. Can the hexagonal participants be denoted in another way? Cheers, S.A. Julio (talk)

		The Football Barnstar
		For your work on football related pages. Coderzombie (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us in this Discussion. Shahin (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I created those drafts in User:Hhhhhkohhhhh/ACL, User:Hhhhhkohhhhh/ACC and User:Hhhhhkohhhhh/OCL. I invited you to improve those drafts, so please feel free to edit on those page, but do not move to mainspace without approval of me, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2016–17 Tahiti Ligue 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AS Dragon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2004 CCCup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2004 CCL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2005 CCCup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2005 CCL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2008 CCCup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2008 CCL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2009 AFC President’s Cup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2011 CCC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb competition 2003 CCL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a page for CECAFA U17 2018 in Burundi...but since I am new, I do not know how to tranfer it and to make it public and to link it to the existing pages such as CECAFA U17.. Can you help ? My draft can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Normandy64/2017_CECAFA_U-17_Championship Thanks ! Normandy64

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Africa U-20 Cup of Nations qualification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ngozi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 CAF Confederation Cup group stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I think the edit you made on Mohammad Kdouh on the 2018 AFC Cup knockout stage should not have been made since according to the AFC profile of the player, the player who scored the goal is not the same as the one who has the wiki page with the same name. Therefore I think you should revert the edit made there.--Anbans 585 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I wanted to know that should we add the goalscorers in the 2018 CAF Champions League group stage according to the CAF match reports or according to the data provided by the sports websites such as soccerway.com or worldfootball.com. Though I think that the websites would give us more accurate data, but I also think that we should add the goalscorers according to the CAF match reports, as it is the official report by CAF itself. Do tell me about it, I will then add the goalscorers in the CAF Confedrations Cup likewise.--Anbans 585 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anbans 585: I don't see a "big" problem with adding goalscorers from other sources (at least temporarily), since CAF are often quite slow to (or even in some cases never) update their own reports. I also noticed that the CAF Champions League links now redirect you to some really "inconvenient" mobile-style page which give you real-time updates, but again I am not sure how accurate they are (some goalscorers differ from those given in news reports). Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anbans 585: You can also follow the CAF live updates at their twitter account: [1], which is kind of "official". Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So should i change the goalscorers from matchday 3 according to the CAF live update on twitter, or should I change it according to the CAF report (which has now been updated for all the matches) or should I leave it as it is. Since all of the three reports show a different set of goalscorers in the Tunis v KCCA match.--Anbans 585 (talk) 05:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anbans 585: The differences as far as I know are the second goal by KCCA (some give it as own goal, some give it to Shaban, I watched the video and cannot tell who gets the last touch) and the first goal by Tunis (CAF give it to Mejri, but most news reports give it to Badri, so I am just assuming it is an "error" by CAF). Do you know of any other differences? Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was the tweet by CAF about this match. Sometimes the media is also wrong, as I remember that in an AFC Champions League match, the media reported that it was own goal, but the AFC reported otherwise. On a close look at the video posted by AFC, I thought that the AFC was right. So maybe in this case also may be the CAF twitter report is the most accurate?--Anbans 585 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anbans 585: This is the clearest video I can find: [2]. Go to 3:09 for a slow motion replay of the goal. I think #8 Badri got the last touch, not #9 Mejri. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chanheigeorge! Can you help me with some discussion on 2018 Bangabandhu Cup. Do tell me if you think my argument is wrong or not.--Anbans 585 (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned before about edit warring, so I don't have to do that again. Can you also archive your talk page please? Drmies (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to reiterate what Drmies has stated about the edit warring on 2022 FIFA World Cup over OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter I'm glad I'm sitting next to my router or I'd never be able to load this damn talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: @Walter Görlitz: I have only reverted three times, so I have not violated the WP:3RR. Again, I have stated twice my reasons for making the edit, citing specific passages of WP:OVERLINK. Neither of your edits have cited anything specific apart from the words "WP:OVERLINK" and "ugh no", and I would like to hear about your specific reasons for rejecting my edits. If there have been previous debates/consensus about whether host countries/bidding host countries should be linked from a football tournament, please point to it and I would like to read about it, otherwise if it is just one or a few editors making a decision about this, I personally don't understand this decision much. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite.

1. 2018-05-15T06:36:39 - linking to host country is not OLINK
2. 2018-05-15T15:53:51 - the whole controversy over this hosting has to do with everything about the country Qatar, how is this even OVERLINK?
3. 2018-05-16T05:13:10‎ - "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:" Qatar is very much relevant to 2022 FIFA World Cup and reading about Qatar helps readers understand the controversies
4. 2018-05-16T05:16:39‎ - please state a reason why this is not a good edit apart from "ugh no"

That seems like four reverts in under 24 hours to me. What's your count? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a edit, not a revert. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common mistake. WP:3RR states, "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Since you changed the state of the previous OVERLINK, it was reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Chanheigeorge, the onus is on you to argue (on the talk page, not in an edit summary that continues the edit warring) that in this case our usual guideline should be broken. As for the number of reverts, meh--don't fetishize the count. Breaking the 3RR rule is one thing that marks edit warring, but edit warring is also an attitude that is disruptive far beyond 3 reverts in 24 hours. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And can you archive parts of this talk page please? Drmies (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanheigeorge: I have archived your talk page. If you have any questions, please contact me via my talk page, thanks. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 14:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's tournament. Since you had some involvement with the Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's tournament redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's tournament. Since you had some involvement with the Football at the 2019 Pan American Games – Women's tournament redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chanheigeorge, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to 2018 FIFA World Cup have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chanheigeorge. You have new messages at Hhkohh's talk page.
Message added 06:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hhkohh (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chanheigeorge. You have new messages at Hhkohh's talk page.
Message added 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hhkohh (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chanheigeorge. You have new messages at Hhkohh's talk page.
Message added 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hhkohh (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to 2020 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, though there's still a month yet, I was wondering about a few things with the UEFA Nations League. For the goalscorers, I imagine each league will have a section to list all the scorers, though what about the main article? Should all be listed, such as UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying#Goalscorers? Or only the top, such as 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)#Top goalscorers? Or maybe in a table (given the competition's unique format), such as 2017–18 UEFA Champions League#Top goalscorers? Also, should the "overall ranking" tables be updated during the competition, or only once the league phase (and the finals for the top 4) is complete? If the tables are updated throughout the competition, should the top 4 be left blank? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: For goalscorers, let's say Ronaldo scores five goals in League A, and some player scores six goals in League D, would people "compare" them and consider the latter player to be a better goalscorer in this competition? Or perhaps, people would consider to play in different competitions and not directly compare them (I know players also play in different groups in World Cup or Euro qualifying, but at least the groups have similar strengths). So I think for goalscorers, it's probably better to keep four separate lists, and for the overall page maybe just display the top ten goalscorers for each league (or even fewer, like top five, because there are very few games we may even include players with one goal if we get to top ten). As for the overall ranking, my feeling is that people will update it throughout the league phase, and it would actually be a little weird to display every team but leave the top four blank. So perhaps we should keep some note which indicate the top four teams are decided not by the league phase standings but by the top four competition. For example, the positions of the top four teams are all set to "1" or "TBD" prior to the finals competition. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be a bit strange given the different levels, perhaps like the table below, or something different/adjusted?

League A Rank Player Goals 1 Cristiano Ronaldo 5 2 Harry Kane 4 Thomas Müller 4 Luka Modrić 3 Robert Lewandowski Diego Costa

League B Rank Player Goals 1 Gareth Bale 5 2 Denis Cheryshev 4 3 Marko Arnautović 3 Edin Džeko Andriy Yarmolenko

League C Rank Player Goals 1 Aleksandar Mitrović 6 2 Ádám Szalai 5 3 Ivelin Popov 4 Konstantinos Mitroglou Robert Snodgrass Tim Matavž

League D Rank Player Goals 1 Dimitrij Nazarov 5 2 Syarhey Kislyak 4 Aleksandar Trajkovski 4 Valeri Qazaishvili 3 Valērijs Šabala Aurélien Joachim Alexandru Epureanu

I also agree with the overall table, once the competition starts, a note can be added, and the position column can be adjusted. Also, what about the qualification column/status letters related to the Euro qualifying playoffs? I imagine the only column notes/status letters used for the Nations League should be for promotion/relegation/qualification to finals? And the status letters for the 16 UNL group winners should be added only to the Euro qualifying group tables (i.e. (X) Assured of at least play-offs.)? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: The top scorers table looks good. Thanks! As for the notes, I think note "(X) Assured of at least Euro qualifying play-offs." is good. Maybe also something like "(Y) Assured of position within their group." for teams which are certain of finishing 2nd, 3rd or 4th? Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, lost you at the last part, using 'Y' for which competition? S.A. Julio (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: Whether teams are locked into 2nd, 3rd or 4th place in their group (cos they are compared against each other in the overall table). Obviously not as important as 1st place (which gives you the play-off place). Having it or not having it is okay to me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. To clarify, should the following status letters be used (and corresponding qualification columns), or any additions/adjustments? Where should the 'X' go?

• UNL league tables: Qualified (for Lg A winners, until end of league phase) (+ Y?); Promoted + Relegated (permanent, like 2017–18 Premier League)
• UNL overall tables: Champion? (permanent for Finals winner)
• Euro qualifier group tables: Qualified (until end of group stage) (+ X?)

I'd imagine mixing/duplicating the Euro qualification letters/column notes on the UNL tables might be a bit confusing, especially since they would change in the following year? S.A. Julio (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: For the UNL league group tables, only "Q" (or "P") and "R". For the UNL league overall table, I don't know, do we need any indicators at all? For the Euro qualifier group tables, I suppose it can get very complicated if we count all possible combinations of qualifying through groups or play-offs (1. have qualified through groups; 2. may qualify through groups, otherwise definitely in play-offs; 3. may qualify through groups, otherwise maybe in play-offs; 4. may qualify through groups, otherwise no chance of play-offs; 5. cannot qualify through groups, but definitely in play-offs; 6. cannot qualify through groups, maybe in play-offs; 7. cannot qualify through groups, no chance of play-offs, i.e. eliminated from Euro). Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are quite a few combinations, so maybe the following status letters for the above:

• 1: Qualified to the phase indicated
• 2: X Assured of at least play-offs
• 5: Advance to a further round
• 6: Y Cannot qualify directly, but can still qualify via play-offs
• 7: Eliminated

Would 3/4 need a letter? And agreed, overall table shouldn't need anything (only mentioned 'C' because of tables such as Template:2017 Major League Soccer season table). Also, would you say the UNL Finals goalscorers should be counted with the rest of the League A (in the scorer sections on the Lg A and main articles)? S.A. Julio (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 is the default state at the beginning, so no need for status. 4 maybe like status Z? As for whether we should separate league phase and final phase goalscorers, I guess it depends on how UEFA treat these stats, and it's hard to tell at this point. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Also, as UEFA put out a discplinary chart, should there be discipline sections on the league articles, similar to UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group C#Discipline and 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group E#Discipline? S.A. Julio (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't really care much about who is suspended for which match during Nations League matches. If people keep it updated then it's fine. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, probably not necessary (makes sense as its closer to club continental group stages). A few final questions (some unrelated to NL):

1. In the above goalscoring table example, should the players still be sorted by nationality (or surname instead)?
2. I created {{Goalscorers}}, should 2 own goals display above 1? (I originally put 1 OG above 2, as it seems similar to a scale from positive to negatives)
3. For the OFC women's qualifiers, currently Tamanitoakula is listed with scoring Fiji's first goal (per OFC's Twitter and video, where it seems to deflect off her head, along with other sources: [3], [4], [5]), but the OFC report and article list Nasau, which should be listed?

Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 2. I'd say go with whichever option you are more comfortable with. 3. Usually I'd say go with the OFC report, but OFC did tweet themselves to make the correction, and her name is also given in the video, so maybe it's better to stay this way and give it to Tamanitoakula. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was again wondering about the status letters for the Nations League, initially I viewed the NL similar to leagues (where clearly there isn't a need to say X can't be relegated). However, given the uniqueness of the competition maybe other statuses should be used? For example:

• League A
  • Qualified to the phase indicated
  • Relegated (permanent)
  • X Cannot be relegated
    • This status does not need to be applied to teams already qualified for the Finals
    • Once a team has been relegated from a group, these statuses can be removed
  • Y Cannot qualify for Nations League Finals
    • This status does not need to be applied to already relegated teams
    • Once a team has secured qualification for the Finals from a group, these statuses can be removed
• League B and C
  • Promoted (permanent)
  • Relegated (permanent)
  • X Cannot be relegated
    • This status does not need to be applied to already promoted teams
    • Once a team has been relegated from a group, these statuses can be removed
  • Y Cannot be promoted
    • This status does not need to be applied to already relegated teams
    • Once a team has been promoted from a group, these statuses can be removed
• League D
  • Promoted (permanent)
  • Y Cannot be promoted
    • Once a team has been promoted from a group, these statuses can be removed

Should another status letter be used for teams that X and Y would apply to (stay in league), or just use both? And maybe one for League C teams who may at best finish third (and one for Group C1)? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: I think the P, Q, R, X, Y statuses are good enough. For reference, see this UEFA.com article for example: [6]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was wondering about the table of the teams for the 2020–21 edition, should we show promotion/relegation with something like this:

League B

Pot	Team	P/R	Rank
1	Germany		5
	Wales		8
	Turkey		9
	Iceland		12
2	Austria		15
	Scotland		16
	Croatia		17
	Serbia		20
3	Poland		21
	Norway		25
	Czech Republic		28
	Finland		30

League A can just have a "P" in the column heading, and D only an "R". Obviously the pot/rank columns wouldn't be shown until known, and I think a blank cell is alright for teams which remain in their league (no movement). Thoughts? S.A. Julio (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good! Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've added UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying play-offs#Teams selected to give an overview of the spot allocation for all the teams. Thoughts? Typically listing all the teams on a sub-article shouldn't be necessary, but given the complex selection method for the playoffs I thought it would be helpful to include. Also, I wanted to somehow denote the UNL group winners (given their unique status), should something different than italics be used? S.A. Julio (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: It looks okay, but I cannot think of a better way for now. Also, do we need to indicate which play-off paths the teams enter assuming the current 16 teams are selected? For example, right now obviously Path A play-offs have the League A group winners, etc., but once some of the group winners qualify outright, this will be updated (e.g. if there are only 3 League A left, the Path A play-offs will contain a team from League B I suppose?). But I understand that sometimes a draw may also happen to decide which path a team may go to, so it is complicated. Also what is the criteria for seeding? Obviously if the current 16 teams are there, then Path B, C, D are decided based on UNL rankings (Path A to be decided by UNL Finals). But what happens if a play-off path contains teams from different leagues, I suppose they will also be seeded by UNL rankings, but I am not 100% sure. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first question: I was thinking the table would help explain the first step of the play-off setup process, which is selecting the specific teams. The "draw" section can explain the second step, determining which paths teams participate in. Maybe this currently is not clear that the table is about leagues, not paths, as demonstrated by a recent edit from an IP.

For most of the teams which are not group winners in Leagues B and C, the path they enter will probably not be immediately known, as a draw will likely be required. This is because once the 16 play-off participants are determined after 20 teams have directly qualified for Euro 2020, they'll see how many of these 16 qualified by league (i.e. 1 from League A, 5 from Lg B, 6 from Lg C, 4 from Lg D). When more than four teams qualify from a league, the draw decides which non-group winners "stay" in the path of their league, and which must go into a higher league's path.

League D's path should be simple, as (1) no League D teams are likely to qualify directly, (2) it is unlikely any playoff spots will be passed to the bottom tier, and (3) none of the group winners are hosts for Euro 2020.

As for seeding, all pairings will be decided by UNL ranking, even if from different leagues. Too add to all this, there may be pots used for seeding in the play-off draw, depending on the scenario. And of course UEFA added the nice "possibility of final tournament hosts having to be drawn into different paths". S.A. Julio (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: I have to thank your answers, because I am starting to get this play-off thing! Regarding the IP edit [7], I don't think it is correct because in the scenario that all League B group winners qualify outright, then (if my understanding is correct) League A teams can drop down to Path B because the group winner protection is no longer necessary for Path B. So I think regarding path allocation and seeding, the only thing we can be certain now is that: 1. All 16 group winners, if they enter the play-offs, will enter the path of their own league. 2. Bosnia, Scotland and Georgia are certain to be 1 seed, Ukraine, Norway and Macedonia are certain to be no worse than 2 seed (so these six teams will at least host the semi-finals), etc. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also the "teams selected" section is just meant to be an overview of the teams advancing to the playoffs by league, not trying to indicate the composition of the paths (which the IP didn't realise). And I actually had forgotten about the fact that if all League B group winners qualify directly, then League A teams may drop down into Path B (had to recheck their media briefing, which is now offline but archived here). Should that somehow be explained better on the playoff article? (I'm not exactly sure how this would work if, say the extremely unlikely scenario of all League D group winners qualifying directly.) This whole playoff format is quite a lot to try to understand... And now there may be two draws for the final tournament, no idea how that works... S.A. Julio (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think of this, there seems to be a few scenarios where teams (possibly even group winners) may move up or down in terms of play-off paths. Without being 100% sure, I am hesitant to add anything definite about which teams may play in which path and with which seeding, so I think right now the information presented is enough. Over time during qualifying, I am sure there will be more information (and more debates) about how the play-offs are constructed. Thanks for your work again! Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the Euro qualifying draw I've added an 'X' status letter to the 16 UNL group winners, but another editor removed it as it wasn't "due to performance in the mentioned competition". Though technically true, surely it is still necessary to see where teams stand in the competition (being unable to finish top 2 does not mean eliminated). Thoughts? And once a team is guaranteed to advance to the playoffs, should we highlight this in the qualification column permanently? (example below)

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	England (Q)	7	5	2	0	23	5	+18	17	Qualify for final tournament
2	Czech Republic (Q)	7	4	3	0	20	8	+12	15
3	Bulgaria	6	2	2	2	11	13	−2	8
4	Kosovo (A)	8	1	3	4	10	21	−11	6	Advance to play-offs
5	Montenegro	7	0	2	5	6	16	−10	2

Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: I do share some reservations about the use of status symbols and colours in this case similar to the other editors, and I think we need more discussion for this. Perhaps we could take this to Template talk:UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying group tables? Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I agree with opening a discussion, I wasn't as sure about the colours (which isn't a factor until teams start securing playoff spots later next year). However, for status letters, say a team can no longer finish in the top 2 of the group, but may still qualify for the playoffs. Typically, an 'E' status would be used when a team can't reach qualifying spots, however in this case the team is not actually eliminated from the Euros, as the playoff route is still a possibility. If there is no 'X' status letter (along with 'Y' and 'Z'), then it puts the 'E' status letter into a strange situation: it cannot be used at all, or it can only be used for teams who are also eliminated from the playoffs (with the latter case, it makes little sense to use an 'E' for some teams while not using an 'X' to explain the scenario of the others). S.A. Julio (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding colours and the qualification column, on the one hand the qualifying group stage does not play a role in advancing to the playoffs. However, for clubs it is standard to add the qualification note in league tables for cup winners, i.e. Template:2017–18 Süper Lig table and Template:2012–13 Premier League table. So I'm not exactly sure of the best option. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: I can see both sides of the argument. I am somewhat okay with the status symbols, but kind of uncomfortable with the colours, even if as you said, colours are routinely used in leagues where a team qualify with a method other than the league itself. But I guess it is somewhat different here because if the league champions win the cup, then the reserved Europa League place is redistributed through the league, but here the play-off places are never distributed by the qualifying group standings. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'm alright with not using the colours. I initially intended to transclude the playoff "team selection" section to the main qualifying article only until the playoff draw, though now maybe it should stay permanently on the article (thereby taking the role of the playoff colour/qualification column note typically used in the standings tables)? S.A. Julio (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: I think it is a good idea to transclude it, since the main article is most likely more visited than the play-off article, so it should contain at any given point during qualifying, which 16 teams are "currently" selected, and at the end, which 16 teams and an explanation of how they are selected. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also a bit interesting, seems they changed Article 21.03 on page 18 of the regulations compared to the older version, which no longer mentions discarding the result against 4th placed teams. So it seems the third placed ranking remains the same as 2016. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay to add the 2018 Copa Libertadores de Futsal and 2018 Copa Libertadores de Beach Soccer to the Template:2018 in South American football (CONMEBOL)? Thanks. TurboGUY (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboGUY: I don't have a problem with it. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! TurboGUY (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018–19 Syrian Premier 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. Hhkohh (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:June 2019 sports events in Asia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:May 2019 sports events in Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018 Mongolian Premier 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. Hhkohh (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:2018–19 Syrian Premier League table, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hhkohh (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded some in this page Hhkohh (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hope you can create CAF and others Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: CAF would be next. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Boa Vista, Cape Verde (municipality)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Markussep ^Talk 09:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:2018–19 A-League table. Hhkohh (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added additional links to Live Reports for the 2018 AFC U-19 Championship article. I removed them just now on the basis that Wikipedia is not a Live Score Service. Live in-Match reports - e.g. with live on-line commentary are not required. A single report after match completed is all that is required, except for perhaps the most major events such as FIFA World Cup, where there is generally both a FIFA Report and an AFC of other confederation report. Even where that is the case, these are post-game information. Matilda Maniac (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)+1, if we use two AFC report in national teams competition, it is too many. So just use STATS report in national teams competition. Or we will see three report in FIFA Qualifying (that I do not want to see 3 report) Hhkohh (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no consensus for club competition because we have put it several months Hhkohh (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chanheigorge. These edits of you, are those needed? Or even wanted? One may think there is a special article for the knock-out stage or so. I remember the infobox, where the number of teams was lkinked to the teams section. Those were delinked sometime. DOn't know on what ruling though. -Koppapa (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koppapa: It's just for more uniform formatting at the main page 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification, 'cos some of the knockout stage brackets have these links and some do not. Many of the pages I visit have them, e.g., 2019 FIFA U-20 World Cup#Bracket (which does not have a special article for the knock-out stage). Maybe it's not incredibly useful, but I don't see any harm in it, 'cos people can just, well, not click on those links. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, i made it clearer as you don't need the article name when there is no sub-article. Kante4 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me do a cleanup (fixing links and hide F.C.) in that article? Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These two edits actually ate the text under the second |+ (i.e. not showing up). For some reason they weren't caught for over a month...? I have just fixed them (by basically putting the <br /> back), but figured that you might want to know that two |+ doesn't really work. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really WP:TOOSOON? I do not think so. But a new page review does. 2018 final will hold tomorrow and it is time to create some related article. What is your thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: The draw is at least a month away (some time in December?), and we do not know the exact teams admitted by AFC yet. Seems a bit too early for me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: I suppose now with the draw date set for next week, it's probably time to work on the qualifying play-offs and group stage articles. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I will work on AFC Champions League group stage tomorrow since some draw principles may change (maybe having 4 club pots and 1 pot contained 4 MA in each region or others but I am finding some reliable source before working on) and AFC Cup group stage on weekends Hhkohh (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me find this edit source or I will revert as unsourced, regards Hhkohh (talk)