User talk:Tedeff

Already here for the page. No need a ripetition below. Island92 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Only when teams are qualified for the next phase, can you add them. This is the practice. There is no point in adding Team A or Team B in the next table phase. Island92 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting I would have thought there was SOME point in doing it as it is far easier to see at a glance who will be facing whom in the next round without having to scroll up and down to work out who is “winner of quarter final 4”.

Fair enough though I don’t feel strongly enough about it to argue against it if that’s not usually done Tedeff (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW I’ll leave it to you to fix the refs that are now incorrect after your rollback ;) Tedeff (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Refs can be fixed. Thanks for that. Island92 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Roma and Atalanta are granted top 8 position, because maximum for Napoli is 60pt and Fiorentina is 62pt but there is the Match Napoli-Fiorentina; so not both teams could reach that result. Please do not revert the Y to Roma and Atalanta. Stigni (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes they can both reach 8th place, but as I said in my comment, 8th place is not guaranteed to have a conference league place (yet)

ONLY when Atalanta is certain of a top 7 finish, will the Coppa Italia winners spot in the Europa League definitely go to 7th place in the league. Until then, 8th place does not guarantee a place in Europe Tedeff (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Stigni Does what I have said make sense?

also see https://hasithappened.net/atalanta/202324/italyseriea Tedeff (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If Atalanta finish 8th and do not win Coppa Italia then qualify to ECL; if finish 8th and win CI then qualify to UEL. So it is at least ECL. Stigni (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited UEFA Women's Euro 2025 qualifying, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diana Silva. 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) 07:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to write to you that you are not entirely right. in the total column it is indicated how many tournament Moldova took part in qualification. Not how many tournaments were played in total. For World cup this number is 2, for euro only 3 as of today. Also according manual of style yellow colour is used only for champions. It seems you here only to destroy…. Why are you doing this mate ? Kolya77 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow man you are WAY out of order here.

I was only trying to improve things, and add info which is relevant, in particular that the Euro and WC qualifiers are now linked to the Nations league: see other teams pages.

The light yellow colour is NOT for champions (that would be gold) it is the colour for PENDING, that is, something that has not happened yet and is used frequently on other pages

The total column for other teams is usually taken to signify the number of tournaments that have taken place since the team joined UEFA, not just the ones they have attempted to qualify for, obviously if a team has tried to qualify for every tournament since they joined UEFA that number is the same. again, see other teams.

i am NOT here to “destroy” as you put it, and I do not appreciate the accusation. Believe me I won’t touch the Moldova page again as I don’t have the time to deal with your aggression and unpleasantness.

please next time consider the way you phrase things before making such unfounded accusations Tedeff (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but I have visited other national team wiki page (ex England) and i didnt see this yellow pending colour. Everything as of manual of style. For Moldova , Kazakhstan you are adding yellow colour, what is the difference …….?! Sorry for asking but, why are you not starting with England for example or Spain?

About total column It is not clear in as per wikiproject if we should count only tournaments where team A attempted to qualify or since team A joined UEFA or to count all tournament since the beggining.

Anyway, sorry if you took it the wring way and good luck and happy new year. Kolya77 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024–25 Scottish Cup, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025–26 Premier League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You completely twisted the practice we've done before. The only practice we could do is - skip it. The practice we'd done before is, adding a qualification after the final played. When the EFL Cup final finished, ARS and MCI will definitely placed above 5th. As a result,a qualification line will be added to the Premier League which is originally given to the EFL Cup winners, with marking the winners already qualified for Conference League, until the winners of EFL Cup is out of top 5 or confirming an UEL+ place. So the best move is to add a CONFIRMED sixth-place qualification to the league article. However, I tried to make some sentences for this situation to explain, but no sentence is without bias. As the result, the only practice we could do is skip it until the final played. Besides, as a refutation, there should have two UEL berths to the FA so we should add one more Possible qualification to UEL if we do the same thing to the EFL Cup winners, but it didn't happened. Is it fair actually? KyleRGiggs (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I am a little tired of people hiding behind the argument “this is the practice”. Using that argument means we would never be able to improve on anything, even if it’s a “bad” or “not useful” practice. I would contend that my edit is a useful improvement to “the practice”.

Here are my arguments for my edit:

1. The allocation of the League/EFL cup winner to a European competition is completely non-standard across Europe. It’s a special case that no other league uses any more. So there isn’t really “a practice” that we can compare to other than what is done for the Premier League.
2. Most readers are used to seeing the  Conference league spot on other league tables. It is jarring not to see it on the Premier League, so showing it as soon as only a premier league team can win the EFL cup, with the very clear caveat “possible” seems a very reasonable compromise.
3. I first introduced this edit at the point it was certain that ONLY a Premier League team could win the EFL Cup despite not all of them being in the top five at that time. On 17 December after the EFL cup quarter finals. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025%E2%80%9326_Premier_League&oldid=1328031634. Since then, no-one has objected to it, or removed it, until you did nearly three months later.
4. Before I made that edit I looked back over all the premier league seasons since 2000/01 and in ONLY six out of 25 seasons, has the EFL cup winner ACTUALLY taken the corresponding European spot (2001/02 Blackburn 2003/04 Middlesbrough 2007/08 Spurs 2010/11 Birmingham City 2011/12 Liverpool 2012/13 Swansea). In all other seasons, the EFL cup winner has qualified via other means, and the spot has reverted to the highest-placed team in the League. So again, showing the spot, with the caveat “possible” seems very reasonable
5. The allocation of the FA Cup winner to the Europa League is very different because it occurs around the very end of the season, so the possible permutations of teams that could benefit from the spot are so much more variable, and I absolutely agree would be too confusing to show a “possible” spot for them. However the EFL cup finishes much earlier in the league season, and so it is useful and reasonable to show it as early as possible.

I would also like to counter your argument that the spot will be “definite” when the EFL cup winner is known. It won’t. It will be very likely because of their current league position, but they could still drop down the league and end up taking the EFL cup winners spot. In previous seasons we have indicated this fact by adding the spot as soon as the winner is known, with note text clarifying that it’s not definite until the winner is guaranteed a higher league position.

So to my mind, my edit is an extension of that “practice” and is reasonable and useful to indicate now (and for the past 3 months) via the note and the use of the word Possible. When the EFL cup final happens it becomes “more definite”, and we should then remove the word “possible” and use a team status letter to indicate “has at least qualified for Conference League” and ensure the note is worded accordingly,as we have done in previous seasons. Then as always, at the point that the EFL Cup winner is guaranteed a high enough league position, again we change the note to indicate that the spot is now “definite”.

The fact that my original edit in December has remained in place until you removed it nearly three months later, suggests to me that other users have found my approach reasonable and useful.  So my question to you is, why change it now? When others have no objection to it, with the understanding that we can progressively use “more definite” wording as the league progresses? Tedeff (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs i left a full 24 hours between replying to you with a very carefully worded explanation. You did not reply, so I took that as acceptance of what I had stated and went ahead and reinstated my edit which no one had a problem with for three months.

If you were unhappy with it you could have replied here and we could have kept talking.

Acting with a retaliatory edit to make the whole thing more confusing is really not productive or helpful. And is essentially you starting an edit war.

Please remove your recent edits, and then start a Talk thread on the article to gain consensus. Tedeff (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Don't reply on your own talkpage as I will not be alerted that you have already response to my message. You could either make a reply to my talkpage or ping me by @ function. Thank you.

The word "Possible" still violates WP:CRYSTAL, which assumes the EFL Cup winners would placed 5th+ in the Premier League. It should be the same procedure to the FA Cup winners. When you see what I did to the FA Cup winners and the European Performance Spot, you'd see how annoying if doing this. After 22 March, the league table would show like the one I show afterwards here. Just leave it alone. KyleRGiggs (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The label is already enough to express everything there. Just calculate which place would both Arsenal and Manchester City would be at the timeframe of 23 March, the league table would only show "qualify", not "possible qualify". As I cannot find any suitable wordings to express that at this moment, I left it alone. You could see how struggled to express this by the edit history before I removed all of them. If you could find any better wordings here, please help for express it. Thank you. KyleRGiggs (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs I assumed you would be notified if I replied to a conversation that you started on my talk page, that’s my bad. BUT I also said “see my detailed explanation on my talk page” when I reverted your change, so you still should have read that before aggressively making silly changes that I ALREADY agreed would not make sense.

I completely disagree with you that the wording is unclear. To me, it is absolutely clear and useful.

I feel like you haven’t read my very carefully worded response, and I’m particular You haven’t replied to my basic question “why change it NOW, when it has been shown like that since 17 December, and noone except you has objected to it?”

Please undo all the crazy point-scoring edits you have made today which make no sense and leave my change in place, then start a thread on the article Talk page to get consensus from others. I feel like there is already implied consensus for my change which has been there for nearly 3 months, but you clearly disagree which is fine, but you are going about this the wrong way. Please ask others to help make this decision and don’t deliberately ruin the page just to make your point.

The reason change NOW is because the winners will definitely place 5th or above when the final take place momentarily. They would maybe fall out of top five but at that instant, the sixth-placed team is under contender to take the berth. Honestly I don't think possible should be made to the article when it was December but it remind all readers that there is a Conference League berth to the Football Association so I turned a blind eye. But at this moment, the winners of the EFL Cup would transfer the berth to the league position if they keeps their position within fifth, which is the exercise which we did to the previous seasons. As your strong desire to mention that, now I tried to add the word "until the winners is out of top five", which is strongly against the readability however. I don't mind anyone to modify it but, the winners will definitely transfer the berth if they keep their position until end of the season. KyleRGiggs (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@KyleRGiggs I have slightly modified the wording of what you said to hopefully make it a little clearer. Thanks Tedeff (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Perfect. That's what I wanted to do at the first second. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)