Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:18, 3 February 2006 editDanielCD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users31,574 edits →Archiving← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:56, 5 August 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,272,119 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(205 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
]
{{WikiProject Football}}
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/navigation}}


*]
*]


==Juventus F.C.==


Has it won as it meet its target and it has the most votes --] 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
== Tie ==
::So far today neither I nor Aabha have been around to update it, but I'll update it now.
:Anyone can update it when a new article is to be selected (each Sunday), To select a new AID the following articles need to be updated:
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
:* ] (which should be posted on the user talk page of those who voted in the past week, plus those who voted for the winner)
:and <s>]</s> should be removed from the old collaboration and put on the new one. ] 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
::That should read ], not ]. ] 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:::I've now transcluded the current colloboration onto ], if it works properly it shouldn't need manual updating anymore. ] 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
::::It doesn't work, the subst'ed template changes. Back to manual updates. ] 13:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::<s>I think I've fixed it, using <nowiki><includeonly></nowiki> and <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki>. Hope that helps. &ndash;&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•</small> 13:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)</s>
:::::<s>Or no... &ndash;&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•</small> 13:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)</s>
:::::I believe I've fixed it now. &ndash;&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•</small> 13:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. ] 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
:Hello, please help me to come to Zabihullah Koohkan's article and thank him in the discussion and help develop the article. ] (]) 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


== Just to clarify ==
We've had a tie this week between ] and ]. I wasn't sure what to do in this case as this is the first we've come across. I've followed what ] does, that is
If a nomination doesn't get 3 votes in a week, is it deleted from the list? The Bayern Munich Junior/women have been there two days after they needed the three votes, so should I just delete them? ]]] 10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
:Nominations which do not get the required number of votes should be moved to ] ] 11:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool, cheers. ]]] 13:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


==Opt-out list==
''In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins. During the extended voting period the old collaboration should still be active. In the case of extended voting, the collaboration period will be reduced to 6 days.''
There's a few people for whom I post ] on their talk page pretty much every week. I guess in these cases they already know about the AID and don't need reminding. So, if you do not wish to have
<div style="border:1px solid #333333; background-color: #c5fcdc; text-align:center; padding:5px;">
]Thank you for participating in the ] vote this week.
''']''' has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
</div></div>
appearing on your talk page when a new AID is selected, put your name here. ] 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


== WikiProject Biography ==
Should we follow this? Does everybody agree on the fairness of the process? -] ] 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
:No objections. Though "''In case of a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins''" would be a simpler rule. ] 12:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


] if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! ] 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
:: Yeah, just the "first nominated", without 24 extra hours of voting, seems easier to have. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I went ahead and added this version to the project page. ] 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


:An inter-project collaboration is a great idea, plange. Ta. <span style="font-family:Verdana;"><small><span style="border:1px solid gold;padding:1px;background:#DD0000">]]]</span>&nbsp;</small></span> 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
== Leaving articles on for a fortnight ==


==Change to fortnightly?==
It's great to see so many people getting involved in the AID, but I've noticed that the articles that are chosen aren't having that much done to them (I know, sofixit). One way round this would be to make the project fortnightly but I think too many articles are being nominated for that. So I suggest that we leave articles on for a fortnight and continue to vote weekly, giving us two articles at a time. That will give us time to get more work done on the articles that are nominated and also increases the chance of each person in the project having at least one AID that interests them. Thoughts? ] ] (]) 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been a general decline in the number of editors working on the current AID each week, and I don't think it is attracting enough attention to justify making a new selection each week. Currently we only have two nominations, of which the leader has only 2 votes, and the current selection has only been worked on by 3 editors thus far. Perhaps the selection should be made fortnightly rather than weekly, thoughts? ] 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


:Should give it a couple of weeks to see if the drought continues, or it could cause some bother if there are a lot of nominations with a fortnightly cleanup. That or all the football articles are now perfect ;). <span style="color:blue; background-color:red">''']]]'''</span> 01:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
:I think this is a great idea, specially after the response to ] :( -] ] 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


==Selection quandary==
I quite like this idea. We get more time to work on articles, and there is a new article every week to sustain interest as well. What does everyone else think about it? -] ] 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
On the face of it ] is due to be selected, but ]'s only contribution is to make that vote, which strikes me as weird. Removing that vote would result in ] being selected. ] 10:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:I figured I'd solve the situation by voting for one of the articles myself. Spurs are likely to be a topic of interest to more editors than Linderoth (biographies tend to attract less attention when selected than clubs, unless its someone iconic like Pele), so I voted for Spurs. ] 10:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
==Football Stadiums==
I've seen quite a few football stadium articles and there isn't much in them. If there are any articles to focus on, it's the stadium articles. ] 11:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


== Renominating articles == == Number of votes needed ==


Just curious: the articles on ], ], ], and ] were nominated on the same week. On their second week, the former three need at least 2 more votes, but the latter, which was nominated after the former three, needs 3 more. Why is this? T.I.A. --] 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
], which had a total of one vote, has been renominated a few hours after being removed for lack of interest. This is ridiculous. I'd like to suggest a rule that failed nominations be left for at least month before being re-listed, otherwise we'll end up with loads of articles with 1 or 2 votes clogging up the list. The whole point of removing failed nominations is to prevent this. ] ] (]) 16:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:The date is extended by a week for every 3 votes. When Platini got three votes the date was extended, so it will be up for two weeks, whereas the others will be removed after a week if they do not get more votes, note the dates. There's probably a far clearer explanation somwhere else, try the archive. ] 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


==Stadium articles==
It was on the verge of more votes when it was deleted. The deadline needs to be extended to maybe 10 days or a couple weeks. ] 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame that the stadium articles I've nominated didn't get enough votes since those are the soccer articles that really need a lot of work on. ] 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


==Old supported artcles==
:Was it? Why then has no one more than you voted now? The deadline is just fine, the meaning, as CTOAGN says, isn't to have 1-2 vote articles filling the page. One month before renomination seems fine. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Can people please add this (<nowiki>{{FootballIDRIVEpast}}</nowiki>) to the talk pages of old articles supported by the FootballDRIVE as it tells users which articles have been supported by the FootballDRIVE. ] 18:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


==Reform==
There was discussion on the previous nomination which indicated that there could have been more votes given an extra week. ] 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
These days articles selected for the Football Article Improvement Drive get very little activity. It might be time to reform the nature of the Improvement Drive. What are people's thought about changes in emphasis? One possibility is making it more task based, e.g. "expand as many ] to beyond stub level as possible", or "add references to articles about ] winners". ] 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:My sensation is there's no common willing to join forces for improving a single article decided by majority, except of course when the majority is clear, possibly almost unanimous. I would first consider make the AID in a bi-weekly basis, with the goal not to improve article to featured status (that is quite uneasy) but to good one, and possibly without making the AID itself look too UK-centric (a clear majority of AID winners are somewhat related to football in the UK). I wouldn't think a task-based AID would work, mainly because these kind of things can be discussed and coordinated directly by the WikiProject without the need for an AID.
:Possible ideas: make it bi-weekly, involving constantly a fixed set of WP users with proven football-related knowledge in the selection process, and considering more concrete parameters within the selection itself (e.g. giving preference to stubs and articles in need of cleanup rather than good or quasi-featured articles). --] 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
::I used to do stuff on the Article Improvement drive, I worked on the ] article. But the way it is now, it really doesn't work. We should change it to every two or three weeks and really have a colaborative effort. For example, we all set a to-do list and every guy works on one thing, or we all work on a big list. We should give direction to our efforts so the union of the editors makes the improvement drive strong. Otherwise, you end up working alone and it's not very satisfying. When you work together and see the articles growing, you also give your best.--] <sup>]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;]</sup> 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Personally I would rather see this effort being aimed toward articles that are deemed Top priorities for the project. This page could be used to debate what should be on that list. ] 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::] and ] have had a lot of success through focusing on one article and working on it until it's FA standard. That's the direction I think the AID should be taking. I know that in some respects it's a bit risky, as if we just have one article hangin indefinetely and no-one contributes then the AID will collapse altogether, but I think it's a more worthwhile project than what we have now, where the AID seems to just do general clean-up. As aLii says, we could focus on important articles - I'd certainly like to get a national team up to scratch so we have a template for the rest. ] 11:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


::1. cleanup and 2. expansion of stubs should be priorities (not only on this but in every WikiProject). Also we have to make some use of the article assessments to prioritize articles that need work. Based on that, a high-importance stub article should deserve more attention than a Low-importance b-class article, etc. but basically try to balance things out (why, for example, should ] deserve a much more extensive article than ]???) Another very important thing to do IMHO is that when an article wins the AID it should be mandatory to post a TO DO list on the article's talk page, to guide editors and separate minor tasks. --] 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
:Still, a nomination that needs two weeks to collect two votes is not popular enough to become a FAID, in my opinion. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


A thing I just noted in the AID for this WikiProject: lists are much more likely to be chosen as possible improvement drives rather than "real" articles. As we have an ] proposing quality and importance scales for articles associated to this WP, I suggest to take the list of higher-importance articles in a state of stub/start quality, and choose between them. --] 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to let the discussion surrounding a nomination go for nothing? The point is let the discussion come full circle before deleting the nomination. ] 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


How about instead of nominating articles and see if they win, we nominate articles to be listed. ] 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
: I am not sure I understand what you mean? The first nomination was removed because it didn't fulfill the criteria to remain nominated. Is that hard to understand? Then renominating the same article is not good manner. Can you also direct me to the "discussion on the previous nomination which indicated that there could have been more votes given an extra week"? -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


== Football club names ==
::If you mean that we should archive old discussions from here, it wouldn't be a bad idea. I can't remember if we already do that or not, if not we can set up an ] page or something. ] ] (]) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The current football collaboration of the week is ]. I have proposed an overhaul of the article, including a move and a reformatting, on the article's talk page. Please join the discussion at ]. ] ] ]<sup>/</sup>] 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:The point is is that if it's being debated why take it off? In the case of Bayern Munichs' womens' squad it was 1 vote plus being debated. There was potential for more votes. If there was no disscussion going on then you would be absolutely right. ] 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


==] up for deletion==
:: Where was the debate? -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Apparently 'byline' is a lesser known sports term so it's up for AfD here ] Can anyone improve it to improve its chances of retention? ] 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Under comments. In the 1st nomination. ] 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
==Community Portal==
This collaboration appears to be inactive so I am removing it from the community portal. If this becomes active again just add it back.--] 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


== ] expansion ==
: Eh? I only found this:


Hello, I am beginning the process of expanding the Intertoto Cup. This is arguably the fourth most important tournament in European football, but very little information in contained in Misplaced Pages (and almost none before UEFA took over in 1995). My name is initially to complete every year 1961-present with introductions and relevant info, group tables, and scores from the knock-out rounds. I have also done a small amount of correction and addition to the Intertoto Cup page, and set up some key redirects that were not in existence previously. Hopefully by the time this season's tournament ends (in late July) I will have completed this process for all 47 seasons. This is rather fitting, as the Intertoto is being abolished after this year.
:*''Does it really need a separate article? ] 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)''
:** ''Yes, I think so. See for example ]. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)''


My 2 main sources are the RSSSF, and a private page of results (which you can find linked from the RSSSF). Plus my own records and, from 1995, UEFA records. There are far too many uncertainties and errors in the group-stage scores at the moment to include a grid with the scores in beside the tables - also, I feel this if pretty ineffective unless you can provide dates and venues for the games alongside (as happens post-1995). For this reason, I am only including the tables on their own currently.
: Where does anyone state that they might vote for the nomination? Punkmorten seems to be somewhat against the nominee even having a separate article, and the other person involved in the "discussion" is me, and I had no thought whatsoever on voting for the nomination, I just wanted to say that I think the women's team deserve its own article. I consider this discussion finished. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Once all the seasons are finished, I will create some supplementary pages like 'List of clubs by appearances in the Intertoto Cup', 'Records and Firsts in the Intertoto Cup' and a page on changing formats. All advice to me is very much appreciated. ] (]) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. Or they would have voted. The discussion was obviously debating both point of views and I would have added given more time. ] 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


== Kit for Histon F.C. Article ==
:I still can't see where this debate was that you mention. There was nothing here, there's nothing on your talk page and the article doesn't have one. The requirement for an article to stay on for a second week is for it to receive ''one'' vote other than the nominator's in its first week. Given the number of votes that are being cast, that's not much to ask is it? ] ] (]) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm usually quite a fast learner when it comes to contributing to Misplaced Pages, but with this one, I'm stuck. I really have no clue how to create kit designs on the article and I was wondering if someone could change the Histon home kit. The home kit looks like this, , and was released today in the local newspaper. As far as I know, the shorts and socks are still the same colour, but could someone change the Histon kit to stripes as in the picture on the page? Thanks. ] (]) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::The articles that are taken off from the vote are listed at ], alogwith the votes they have received, and any discussion that might have taken place ''under'' their nomination.
:I'll tell you how I'd do it... If you click on the existing football kit you go to ], which, in the yellow box, has a link to ]. This not only tells you what to do, but also has a list of kits. Choose either a kit with red stripes or black stripes and use the reverse colour as the shirt colour background. _blackstripescollar looks as near as you'd get, from the existing list. &nbsp;<span style="font-family:verdana;">]<small>&nbsp;]]</small></span> 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
::Kingjeff, nobody is stopping you from nominating articles again, but its only fair that there be a time-gap between renominations. If the article failed to receive enough votes in a week, its highly unlikely that it will do so the very next week. -] ] 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::Hello, please help me to come to Zabihullah Koohkan's article and thank him in the discussion and help develop the article. ] (]) 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's under the assumption that no disscussion has happened on that paticular article. ] 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Well, no. I know very well what discussion you're referring to. But unfortunately, "discussion" does not equal "votes". Can you please clearly state what your argument is? The comments under nominations are not for deciding whether an article should be nominated, or if it should stay on the list. If it gets the votes, it stays. If it doesn't get the votes, it goes. Its that simple.
:How can we assume that the discussion that you're talking about would have led to more votes. There is just no logic behind that. -] ] 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said disscussion = votes. But the thing is that discussions should be complete before deleting nominations. I never said that discussion would lead to votes. I said that it '''could'''.] 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:The discussion in question roughly went: "I don't think this should even have an article", "I think it should but I'm not voting for it." That was it. No part of that discussion suggests that people were suddenly going to start voting for the article after ignoring it for a week. If hardly any votes had been cast all week I could see a case for making an exception but there were loads of votes last week. As far as I could see, the discussion looked complete anyway. I don't see a real problem with leaving it on seeing as it's just one article and there was no rule in place about renoms at the time, but the idea of renominating an article immediately after it's kicked off is silly, especially when the only way it could have done any worse is if you'd forgotten to vote when nominating it. It might be worth working on it and seeing if people want to join in later on when there's a bit more content though. ] ] (]) 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==New Users==
I just noticed that ] has only made edits to pages with votes in progress. There is nothing to suggest this isn't allowed, but perhaps it is something we should think about. ] 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:It's only made votes to pages Kingjeff has voted on. I wonder what the odds of that are. ] ] (]) 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:: And (s)he's only ever made any "contribution" to pages which Kingjeff has "contributed" to. I'd say do not count those votes unless ] has a good reason for us to do so. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't voted for ]. Hargreavesfan hasn't voted ]and ]. Even though all of you are wrong I still love the attention. ] 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:I think that as {{user|Hargreavesfan}} only contibutions so far are votes, we should discount all of them. ] 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:I have to agree with that. As it's unlikely that a genuine new user would turn up on a project page and start voting without editing anything, it's reasonable to ignore the votes of anyone who hasn't made a few article edits. Anyone disagree or can we implement this straight away? ] (]) 09:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

: Implement. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 09:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:I've changed the vote counts and dates after discounting votes of ] and ] (who seems to have no edits at all, funnily). What about ]? -] ] 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::Take a look at ] too, and a stated rule for a fixed number of edits before voting would be the easiest way to go. ] 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Archiving==
Since when is archiving vandalism? If you think any topic is current why not just bring that discussion out?] 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To satify everyone, I left the ones from the last week or so.

: The archiving itself I did not consider vandalism, but being reverted because of a perfectly good reason (some discussions still being active), and then re-doing the action, I consider vandalism. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

why couldn't you pull them out then and repost them? It's an insult to me when you falsely accuse me of that when you, me and everyone else knows that it isn't vandalism.] 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:] include blanking of pages. When the article approaches the 30kb limit, the finished topics should be archived, not an indiscriminate archiving of all topics at 20kb. ] 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't blank pages. The talk page was still too long at 20 kb. ] 14:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what your vandalism page says about this situation. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." ] 14:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: Well, your archiving was reverted once without anyone yelling "vandalism". Then you did the same thing again. That is not what I call a "good-faith effort". -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a good faith effort since I believed on '''both''' occasions that I was right. ] 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: Archiving current discussions is not right, nor is it good faith, no matter what you think. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you're right about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything?] 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:For better for worse, the material is archived. What's done is done; it's not a big deal if no active discussions are taking place. You should wait until the page is full (30kb), but hey, consider it lesson learned. Was any material ''deleted''? --] 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely no material was deleted. I didn't blank anything, I didn't do anything but achive the discussions. ] 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Well, like I said, for better or worse, it's done. Just leave it. I don't see anything to get concerned about here. BTW, how do you "delete" archiving without deleting the page that was created for the archiving? If someone left a blank page there, that's kinda lame. But still no big deal. Leave the crap archived and let's everyone find something more interesting to do. --] 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Yes, we are leaving the page archived, but the proper archiving was done by Kingjeff after he had been reverted twice for archiving the whole talk page leaving this page empty. But yeah, let's leave it at this, as long as Kingjeff realizes that if he is reverted with the edit summary: "rv archiving - some of these discussions are still current", then maybe he should read that and follow it, instead of doing the same thing again. -- <font face="fixedsys">]</font> ] <font face="fixedsys">]</font> 09:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, where do I begin?
*This is a project with 30+ people on it, not a userpage. If you think the talk page should be archived early, it's not asking a lot for you to put a message on it suggesting it and then doing it a day or two later. It wouldn't be a big deal, except to someone more cynical than myself it would look like you'd started an argument, lost it and were trying to hide the discussion, as you have previously done something like that on your user page. Wouldn't it be easier just to discuss your disagreements politely in the first place?
*I'm trying to avoid replying to your posts as much as possible as I see it as a waste of time, but I can't let your behaviour regarding Elisson go unmentioned. He explained his reasons for reverting you in the edit summary and politely asked you to stop. If you'd had a problem with that you could have just discussed it with him here or on his talk page like most of us would have. Going to an admin, giving him your side of the story and asking him to "deal with" Elisson instead of discussing it yourself wasn't really adult behaviour.
*One sentence answers like "So, you're right about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything?" don't really help to advance a discussion. If you'd explained why you thought the page needed archiving and why you thought you were being treated unfairly the discussion would have gone a lot more smoothly.

] (]) 09:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:I think he's learned a bit here. He made a mistake and got a little ego bruised, that's all. And like many of us, is not real savvy at dealing with people we can't see. It's really a skill that takes time to develop (for those who have the adaptability and patience to hang around long enough to develop it). I recommend just reading the issues here and learning from them, and take as that: a learning experience. Terse words were crossed, which isn't right by any means, but perhaps next time, because of this, fewer will be. ;-) --] 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:56, 5 August 2024

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFootball
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
WikiProject Football
Project pages
Assessment
Format templates
Other

Juventus F.C.

Has it won as it meet its target and it has the most votes --Kingjamie 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So far today neither I nor Aabha have been around to update it, but I'll update it now.
Anyone can update it when a new article is to be selected (each Sunday), To select a new AID the following articles need to be updated:
and Template:FootballAID should be removed from the old collaboration and put on the new one. Oldelpaso 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That should read Template:FootballIDRIVECurrent, not Template:FootballAID. Oldelpaso 14:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've now transcluded the current colloboration onto Template:FAIDuser, if it works properly it shouldn't need manual updating anymore. Oldelpaso 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't work, the subst'ed template changes. Back to manual updates. Oldelpaso 13:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it, using <includeonly> and <noinclude>. Hope that helps. – Elisson • T • C • 13:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Or no... – Elisson • T • C • 13:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed it now. – Elisson • T • C • 13:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Oldelpaso 13:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, please help me to come to Zabihullah Koohkan's article and thank him in the discussion and help develop the article. Zabikn7 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify

If a nomination doesn't get 3 votes in a week, is it deleted from the list? The Bayern Munich Junior/women have been there two days after they needed the three votes, so should I just delete them? Kingfisherswift 10:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominations which do not get the required number of votes should be moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Removed Oldelpaso 11:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. Kingfisherswift 13:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Opt-out list

There's a few people for whom I post Template:FAIDuser on their talk page pretty much every week. I guess in these cases they already know about the AID and don't need reminding. So, if you do not wish to have

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Dunga has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

appearing on your talk page when a new AID is selected, put your name here. Oldelpaso 12:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

An inter-project collaboration is a great idea, plange. Ta.  Slumgum T. C.   20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Change to fortnightly?

There has been a general decline in the number of editors working on the current AID each week, and I don't think it is attracting enough attention to justify making a new selection each week. Currently we only have two nominations, of which the leader has only 2 votes, and the current selection has only been worked on by 3 editors thus far. Perhaps the selection should be made fortnightly rather than weekly, thoughts? Oldelpaso 16:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Should give it a couple of weeks to see if the drought continues, or it could cause some bother if there are a lot of nominations with a fortnightly cleanup. That or all the football articles are now perfect ;). Archibald99 01:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Selection quandary

On the face of it Tobias Linderoth is due to be selected, but User:Dk-fck's only contribution is to make that vote, which strikes me as weird. Removing that vote would result in Tottenham Hotspur F.C. being selected. Oldelpaso 10:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured I'd solve the situation by voting for one of the articles myself. Spurs are likely to be a topic of interest to more editors than Linderoth (biographies tend to attract less attention when selected than clubs, unless its someone iconic like Pele), so I voted for Spurs. Oldelpaso 10:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Football Stadiums

I've seen quite a few football stadium articles and there isn't much in them. If there are any articles to focus on, it's the stadium articles. Kingjeff 11:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of votes needed

Just curious: the articles on Volkswagen Arena, Weserstadion, Åge Hareide, and Michel Platini were nominated on the same week. On their second week, the former three need at least 2 more votes, but the latter, which was nominated after the former three, needs 3 more. Why is this? T.I.A. --ChaChaFut 02:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The date is extended by a week for every 3 votes. When Platini got three votes the date was extended, so it will be up for two weeks, whereas the others will be removed after a week if they do not get more votes, note the dates. There's probably a far clearer explanation somwhere else, try the archive. Oldelpaso 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stadium articles

It's a shame that the stadium articles I've nominated didn't get enough votes since those are the soccer articles that really need a lot of work on. Kingjeff 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Old supported artcles

Can people please add this ({{FootballIDRIVEpast}}) to the talk pages of old articles supported by the FootballDRIVE as it tells users which articles have been supported by the FootballDRIVE. Kingjamie 18:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Reform

These days articles selected for the Football Article Improvement Drive get very little activity. It might be time to reform the nature of the Improvement Drive. What are people's thought about changes in emphasis? One possibility is making it more task based, e.g. "expand as many national team stubs to beyond stub level as possible", or "add references to articles about Golden Shoe winners". Oldelpaso 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My sensation is there's no common willing to join forces for improving a single article decided by majority, except of course when the majority is clear, possibly almost unanimous. I would first consider make the AID in a bi-weekly basis, with the goal not to improve article to featured status (that is quite uneasy) but to good one, and possibly without making the AID itself look too UK-centric (a clear majority of AID winners are somewhat related to football in the UK). I wouldn't think a task-based AID would work, mainly because these kind of things can be discussed and coordinated directly by the WikiProject without the need for an AID.
Possible ideas: make it bi-weekly, involving constantly a fixed set of WP users with proven football-related knowledge in the selection process, and considering more concrete parameters within the selection itself (e.g. giving preference to stubs and articles in need of cleanup rather than good or quasi-featured articles). --Angelo 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I used to do stuff on the Article Improvement drive, I worked on the Michel Platini article. But the way it is now, it really doesn't work. We should change it to every two or three weeks and really have a colaborative effort. For example, we all set a to-do list and every guy works on one thing, or we all work on a big list. We should give direction to our efforts so the union of the editors makes the improvement drive strong. Otherwise, you end up working alone and it's not very satisfying. When you work together and see the articles growing, you also give your best.--Serte 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would rather see this effort being aimed toward articles that are deemed Top priorities for the project. This page could be used to debate what should be on that list. aLii 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Dweller and User:The Rambling Man have had a lot of success through focusing on one article and working on it until it's FA standard. That's the direction I think the AID should be taking. I know that in some respects it's a bit risky, as if we just have one article hangin indefinetely and no-one contributes then the AID will collapse altogether, but I think it's a more worthwhile project than what we have now, where the AID seems to just do general clean-up. As aLii says, we could focus on important articles - I'd certainly like to get a national team up to scratch so we have a template for the rest. HornetMike 11:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
1. cleanup and 2. expansion of stubs should be priorities (not only on this but in every WikiProject). Also we have to make some use of the article assessments to prioritize articles that need work. Based on that, a high-importance stub article should deserve more attention than a Low-importance b-class article, etc. but basically try to balance things out (why, for example, should Peter Crouch deserve a much more extensive article than Jules Rimet???) Another very important thing to do IMHO is that when an article wins the AID it should be mandatory to post a TO DO list on the article's talk page, to guide editors and separate minor tasks. --ChaChaFut 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A thing I just noted in the AID for this WikiProject: lists are much more likely to be chosen as possible improvement drives rather than "real" articles. As we have an assessment department proposing quality and importance scales for articles associated to this WP, I suggest to take the list of higher-importance articles in a state of stub/start quality, and choose between them. --Angelo 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about instead of nominating articles and see if they win, we nominate articles to be listed. Kingjeff 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Football club names

The current football collaboration of the week is Football club names. I have proposed an overhaul of the article, including a move and a reformatting, on the article's talk page. Please join the discussion at Talk:Football club names#Suggest restructuring. Cows fly kites (Aecis) 11:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Byline (soccer) up for deletion

Apparently 'byline' is a lesser known sports term so it's up for AfD here ] Can anyone improve it to improve its chances of retention? Nick mallory 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Community Portal

This collaboration appears to be inactive so I am removing it from the community portal. If this becomes active again just add it back.--Banana 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Intertoto Cup expansion

Hello, I am beginning the process of expanding the Intertoto Cup. This is arguably the fourth most important tournament in European football, but very little information in contained in Misplaced Pages (and almost none before UEFA took over in 1995). My name is initially to complete every year 1961-present with introductions and relevant info, group tables, and scores from the knock-out rounds. I have also done a small amount of correction and addition to the Intertoto Cup page, and set up some key redirects that were not in existence previously. Hopefully by the time this season's tournament ends (in late July) I will have completed this process for all 47 seasons. This is rather fitting, as the Intertoto is being abolished after this year.

My 2 main sources are the RSSSF, and a private page of results (which you can find linked from the RSSSF). Plus my own records and, from 1995, UEFA records. There are far too many uncertainties and errors in the group-stage scores at the moment to include a grid with the scores in beside the tables - also, I feel this if pretty ineffective unless you can provide dates and venues for the games alongside (as happens post-1995). For this reason, I am only including the tables on their own currently.

Once all the seasons are finished, I will create some supplementary pages like 'List of clubs by appearances in the Intertoto Cup', 'Records and Firsts in the Intertoto Cup' and a page on changing formats. All advice to me is very much appreciated. HibeeJibee (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kit for Histon F.C. Article

I'm usually quite a fast learner when it comes to contributing to Misplaced Pages, but with this one, I'm stuck. I really have no clue how to create kit designs on the article and I was wondering if someone could change the Histon home kit. The home kit looks like this, , and was released today in the local newspaper. As far as I know, the shorts and socks are still the same colour, but could someone change the Histon kit to stripes as in the picture on the page? Thanks. Jazza5 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you how I'd do it... If you click on the existing football kit you go to here, which, in the yellow box, has a link to here. This not only tells you what to do, but also has a list of kits. Choose either a kit with red stripes or black stripes and use the reverse colour as the shirt colour background. _blackstripescollar looks as near as you'd get, from the existing list.  slυмgυм  23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, please help me to come to Zabihullah Koohkan's article and thank him in the discussion and help develop the article. Zabikn7 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Categories: