Talk:2016–17 Coupe de France preliminary rounds

Réunion
There are still two rounds left in Réunion's qualifcation rounds, but only one left before the 7th round. This pdf shows the final as being before the 7th round. The matches listed in the First Round on this wiki page are listed as a "preliminary" round in the calendar I linked. Should we create a different subsection before the first round to fit all of Réunion's rounds in? Gricehead? --Nobreadsticks (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - that would seem to make sense - create a "Preliminary round" section and then move all the Reúnion matches up a section. We had a preliminary round last year for one of the French Mainland leagues. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Gricehead. It appears that there is actually one more preliminary round in Réunion's qualifiers. The round in the sixth round right now if the 1/2 finals so we need to move everything down. It appears that there are two preliminary rounds in the citations anyway, so should I make two separate sections "First Preliminary Round" and "Second Preliminary Round" or should I stick them both into just the one Preliminary Round section? Thanks :) --Nobreadsticks (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So Réunion will only qualify one team for the 7th Round? That's a change from last year, and I hadn't spotted it in the rules. I think First Preliminary Round and Second Preliminary Round sounds like the best solution. Thanks for keeping on top of this! Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Martinique
So, I started the Martinique sections, and it appears that there are two different groups and the teams will never play each other if they are in different groups. Should I somehow show the difference between Group A and Group B in the article, or is it not that big of a deal? --Nobreadsticks (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal (in my opinion). The same is true to some extent in the French leagues, where at least the first two rounds are played within départment and then they gradually come together. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Another quick question. Should I be keeping the periods in abbreviations, like "U.S." or "A.S."? --Nobreadsticks (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The consistent approach would be to not keep the periods. The vast majority of French football club pages on en.wiki do not have periods. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Réunion qualification
Hi Nobreadsticks. I took the fact that both teams qualified from the 6th round from French wikipedia although admittedly this is unreferenced. It is also the most logical explanation (two teams qualified last year, and there we would be one team short in the 7th round otherwise).

The situation will be clarified by the Overseas component of the 7th round draw, which is today at 16:30 French local time (14:30 UTC).

A note ahead of the fixture in the 6th round section would be a sufficient explanation once verified. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * To add: Both are listed here although I'm not sure of the reliability of that source.


 * Hey Gricehead. If it ends up that they both qualified, should I move everything up one round and delete that last game? Because the game was definitely played.


 * Also, quick question about the Tahiti And New Caledonia teams. Should the games be put in these preliminary rounds, or should it go in its own page for their domestic cups? Nobreadsticks (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Leave as is. As you say, the game was played. And the Tahiti and New Caledonia teams do not need to be shown here because they qualified from their own competition. Thanks for your efforts on these! Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Page length
This page is 690,244 bytes long, which is far too big. What's the best way to subdivide it? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My first preference would be that the page stays together in one place. For the view count this page gets, it's a valuable resource for a small community only - especially once the season is over and the references get archived. Having to click around more than one page reduces the accessibility of the data for that community.However, I appreciate wiki has guidelines, so if it is to be split up, I would recommend by region rather than by round. Splitting by round would give a First round page which would probably also be too long. So I would suggest one page for each region and one for overseas round. I'll put this on my to-do list and monitor this page for feedback. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This does make sense but it would lead to 27 articles from this article, and another 54 from splitting the 17-18 and 18-19 cups articles. Is there any way that France is divided into fewer areas that would still make sense? If we use the current regions that would give us 14 (with one for all the overseas departments), but I would still prefer less. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The current regions are used in the 17-18 and 18-19 articles anyway, so there would only be 14 for each of those. Any other geographical based split would be arbitrary in nature - as far as I know France doesn't group its regions like, for example, Brazil groups its states. Whether using the current regions for this (16-17) article makes sense is debatable. Although politically they existed, football was still living in the old (27 region) world. I'd still much prefer the article to remain together, for the reason stated above.Gricehead (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it is the third largest article on Wikipedia. It only needs to be divided into at least three really, but it seems like ~14 is the least we can reasonably do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get "only... three" from; we should be aiming to get each new article under 50K, and preferably less; so 14 is about the minimum. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the source data for the 2016-17 season separated out any more, but looking at 2017-18 and 2018-19, splitting by region would make the largest article 87Kb (including markup, which is not insignificant) and two others >50Kb including markup. It's going to be a lot closer than by round. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Something like 14 would be ideal but this is one of the superlarge articles so it would be good to get any splits going. Aiming for under 50K for these massive articles is extremely ambitious. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we can split the page into the respective rounds, 1st round (1st page), 2nd round (2nd page), etc. other minor rounds can be kept at this page. &#8209;&#8209; V. S. ( C )( T )  13:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Gricehead has made a convincing argument that they shouldn't be split by round, and that location is far more useful. The problem is this means the least amount of articles we can split it into is 17(?) for each cup, of which there are three at the superlarge size. It would be great if someone had the means to do this in an automated way, otherwise I intend to do it manually. At this point in time the article is the largest on English Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's honestly quite daunting to split this article by region, even when using the amalgamated regions created from the 2016 reforms, which comes to about 60 articles for the three of these articles above 600,000 bytes. I think in the meantime at least, we can simply split the first round off from these articles given that the first round takes up almost half of the article and is also the least important round. If we want to split it further we can come back to it later, and it would be better to split them regionally than to split every round. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Redux
The article is now down to 421,675 bytes - thank you - but that's still far too big. What more can be done? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * moving some of the bigger regions out to their own sub articles. Gricehead (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Stripped out sections to 2016–17 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Paris-Île-de-France and 2016–17 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Picardie and Nord-Pas de Calais (replicating the current Hauts-de-France region). Article size now 356,118 bytes. Will do more later. Gricehead (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Two other new sub pages: 2016–17 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Bretagne and 2016–17 Coupe de France Preliminary Rounds, Alsace, Lorraine and Champagne-Ardenne (replicating the current Grand Est region. Article is no longer in the top 500 articles by length (it's 747th as I type). Will that do ? Gricehead (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Article size is now 278,174. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)