Template talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 5

Brazilian football taskforce
I have updated the template in the sandbox to include the new Brazil task force. Would someone please push these changes to the live template or advise on next steps? The code  has already been in use for quite some time now and there are cycles of interest in creating this task force but it always seems to fall apart because no one takes the initiative to set-up pages, change templates, etc. Let’s stop kicking the can down the road on this. Thank you in advance! giso6150 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The categories have been created and the sandbox should be fully functioning. Please move the template into the live version. Thank you. giso6150 (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I cant not see this task force in WikiProject Football/Task forces and sub-projects and could you please show me a consensus that this task force should exist? If so, please reactivate this request by changing answered parameter to no. Qed237&#160;(talk) 13:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a mess and that is largely my fault. I have apparently posted the wrong things in the wrong spots at the wrong times and consequently there is no single spot that demonstrates a consensus. It is also worth noting, however, there has been no serious objection to anything apart from how and where I have misstepped. Four editors immediately added their names to the participant list on the rogue task force page (which I understand I should NOT have created without prior discussion). GiantSnowman admitted that he “agree[s] that a Brazil taskforce is probably needed” and never returned to the discussion to formally object. No one has, in fact. There is lots of interest and no objections, but the discussion is spread out all over the place (another lesson I learned).
 * I won’t waste any more of my own or anyone else’s time by digging through the 96 page archives of the WPFootball talk page to find every time this topic has been enthusiastically brought up and then allowed to whither. However, I will point out that just among the country-based task forces of this WikiProject, Africa, Wales, Netherlands, Hong Kong, and France each have fewer than ten members. So we can all let this opportunity pass yet again on the technicality of “no consensus” if we must, even though there are people who want to help and no one saying not to… I have learned my many lessons. giso6150 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not completely sure here, but I am not comfortable to add this taskforce without consensus so I will leave it open for a second opinion. Myself I see Brazil as one of the "birthplaces" for football and I dont see why they should not have a taskforce, it is just to get consensus. Perhaps WP:RFC could help, but also a small short text (too long and editors wont read it) at WT:FOOTY and then let editor voice their opinions could be the way to go forward. Qed237&#160;(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the comments, Qed237, especially regarding RfC. I’ll wait another day or two and see if anyone weighs in here first. giso6150 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This task force should have been created years ago. I'm not even sure why it would require any discussion. We're current assessing a very large number of articles for WP:Brazil and I'd fast-track adding this task force so it can be included as part of that project. Prburley (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know why we're messing about with this. As far as I can see, there is interest and the legwork has been done. Plus Brazilian football is very far-reaching in terms of its appeal, so I don't know why it's taken this long for a task force to be created. – PeeJay 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked at the to-do page and its history, and I searched talk page archives, but I see nothing there about creating such a task force nor anywhere else on the Brazil project. Can you be more clear just where there is consensus to add this? – <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Paine</b>  14:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the consensus not implicit by the fact that several people have already joined up? – PeeJay 21:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PeeJay2K3. This is what I have been trying to say. I’m glad that others recognize that ten days of people signing up and stepping forward to say ”yes” without objections (to the task force itself) is a consensus. giso6150 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not comfortable to add it either without a formal discussion on its creation. The task force already appears to be created without discussion from the WikiProject, and people are joining, yes. But there is still no formal discussion from the WikiProject authorizing its existence. Please refile for addition once explicit consensus has been reached. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 03:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm sure the folks of WT:FOOTY will say yes. – PeeJay 08:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refile where? There's an extensive conversation here that reached consensus, should it now be ported over to the Project talk page? Prburley (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Refile here, by altering yes to no, remembering to link to the specific discussion(s) where the explicit consensus has been reached. Don't link to whole pages like WT:FOOTY: if it has been agreed some time ago but not implemented, link those discussions too. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm out. is there any chance you could take the above task on? It's beyond what I have the time/energy to figure out. This is exactly why day-to-day editors leave Wikipedia. If there's a way to make things more complex, we manage to find it. Prburley (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prburley if the process had been properly adhered to and consensus reached here before posting to this purely technical page then this wouldn't be happening. Nothing is being made more complex for anyone. Blethering  Scot  17:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We have consensus for creation of the task force on WT:FOOTY. Please move the sandbox code to production. Thank you. giso6150 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve tagged over 1000 articles with  since GiantSnowman instructed me to “Simply get editing!” Is there something else I can do? giso6150 (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We can start using the tag now? Prburley (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The code won’t do anything until the template changes are activated, but other people had been adding that  tag since before I ever started doing it. That’s why I thought creating this task force was such a no-brainer… Once the template changes go through, the articles will get indexed and show up in their assessment categories (which I created at the beginning of the month). giso6150 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are jobsworths still blocking the creation of this? There's clear consensus here after the two or three mongs who spend all day every day at WP:FOOTY had their petulant little moan about not being consulted first. 94.8.48.240 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you please provide any insight into why this has stalled? giso6150 (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

B-class assessment criteria
Taking a leaf out of WP:CRICKET's book (per Template:WikiProject Cricket), I've added the assessment criteria for B-class articles to the sandbox version of this template. Could an admin please integrate this into the proper version of the template, as well as adding the code for the Brazil task force as outlined in the section above? It's all in the sandbox, I hope. – PeeJay 17:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. are also necessary. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I knew there'd be something I'd missed. – PeeJay 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance football articles issue
Looking through the Category:Unknown-importance football in Germany articles I noticed that a lot of them have an importance rating but that they don't seem to categorise right, remaining in the unknown category. Investigating further by comparing them with some that do I think I may have found the issue. Comparing Talk:1933–34 Gauliga, where it works, to Talk:1933–34 Gauliga Bayern, where it doesn't, the difference seems to be in the Germany= parameter. When writing yes it displays the task force and categorises right, if writing just y it also displays the task force but does not categorise the importance correctly. Any thoughts on how this could be fixed other than manually changing the wording? Calistemon (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * May I just add that, at a quite a number of them I propably screwed it up myself by writing y instead of yes when adding the project template to the talk page. Calistemon (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem in this specific case is in, in the line  so this results in either of two things: yes or tf 7 importance. However, the tf 7 importance parameter (documentation) does not expect a yes/blank (or similar) value, it expects an importance rating (Top/High/Mid/Low). Same goes for all the others -   etc. Each of these should be amended, in either of two ways. If it is desired that the importance rating for each taskforce should always be the same as the main importance rating, simply remove those lines and all the others like them; in this way, the existing   lines will handle the rest for you. On the other hand, if it is intended that each taskforce should have its own importance rating, a different approach is needed - something like this:  and the same method for the others, but different param names obviously; then you would be able to use e.g. low mid for a team which is fairly significant in Germany, but not in a world context. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could it be done so that an article automatically inherits the WP:Football importance rating unless a different, country-specific rating is put in place? This would provide the most flexibility while still putting an article in an importance category for a task force until specifically assessed instead of placing it in the unknown importance category. Calistemon (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'll need to think about it, and I have to leave to go to work in 6 minutes time (11:55 UTC). -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, absolutely no rush on this. Its just an idea. Calistemon (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's next on my list, after I've caught up on tonight's TV. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, try using parameters like low yes mid, then try varying those, including blanks and omissions.
 * The way I've set it is that if when yes is set, and Germany-importance is given a value, that value is used for the "xxx-importance football in Germany articles" category; if Germany-importance is blank or omitted, then importance is used for the "xxx-importance football in Germany articles" category; when Germany is blank or omitted, Germany-importance is ignored and there is no "xxx-importance football in Germany articles" category. Same for the other country, continent, club etc. taskforces. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, took me a little while to work out what you meant with try it in the sandbox but I got there in the end and it worked fine. I think its a good addition for all football task forces, not just the German one. Calistemon (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has objected, so I've put the changes live. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started using the feature for rating Germany-related football articles and it works quite well. Thanks for your effort. Calistemon (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Canadian/US flag
Perhaps we should use the hybrid flag (File:Flags of Canada and the United States.svg) to represent the Canadian/US task force here, especially on articles involving both nations (e.g. MLS, MLS Cup 2017, Cascadia Cup).  Sounder Bruce  06:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2019
Please remove  - Portal:Seattle Sounders FC was deleted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cabayi (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)