User talk:Hhkohh/sub1

split of articles of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying
Hello, I noticed a few days ago you made changes to how the articles of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying are split. Personally, I think what you did is very arbitrary and confusing, and does not reflect how the qualifying is structured (for the UEFA overview, see here: ). For example, the play-off round is simply the final round of qualifying for the group stage and should not be split alone (while you split the other rounds not split by round but by path). I think the best way is to split into three articles like this: The first article contains the qualifying overview and seeding etc. The second and third articles contains only the information related to the matches themselves. I think this way is the clearest, and I will implement it. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round
 * 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Champions Path)
 * 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (Main Path)
 * If you are interested, you can see WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 117. Also qualifying phase is not included play-off round. You can know why I did this. Maybe I will open a discussion on WT:FOOTY later Hhkohh (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * UEFA considers the play-off round as part of the qualifying system, as explained in this article: . Also pre-group stage qualifying statistics always include play-off round. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Qualifying system include qualifying phase and play-off round per, so qualifying phase exclude play-offs and consensus is split by rounds is better than split by paths per this discussion and we also have 2016–17 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and 2016–17 UEFA Europa League play-off round due to template exclude Hhkohh (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am okay with either split by path or split by round, but what you did was split one round out, and then split the remaining rounds by path. That's why I think this split is not good. I suggest sticking with one method. Also I think it is better to keep the overview article 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round, as this is similar to 2018–19 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round, and then put the details of the matches at the sub-articles. Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So (who involved previous discussion), what is your opinion or idea? I am welcomed that you leave your comments or take part in this discussion Hhkohh (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, more than 250 matches may cause template exclude issues Hhkohh (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with this three-way split is that it is unnatural. Take a look at the access list:. There is no way you can find that UEFA or any football public perceives the qualifying system to be "divided" into these three parts. And take a look at how a sentence was written at an earlier version of the page: "A total of 29 teams are expected to compete in the Champions Path to decide ten of the 42 places in the play-off round of the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League"

First, there are 6 more teams starting from the play-off round of the Champions Path, and there is no significant difference between these 29 teams and those 6 teams, so there appears little reason to single out these 29 teams that start from Champions Path Q2 and Q3. Second, the goal of any team playing in qualifying (apart from the immediate goal of advancing to the next round) is to reach the group stage. I don't think Burnley are playing in the UEL Q2 tonight and thinking: "It'd be great if we eventually reach the play-off round!" So while the sentence above is factually correct, it offers almost no use in helping the reader understand the UEL qualifying system, which is complicated as hell. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So should we divide into 5 parts? Hhkohh (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we split into 5 parts: one for PR, one for Q1, one for Q2, one for Q3 and other for PO and it can makes updating, referencing and browsing much easier. But I think it makes no sense to create 5 pages for qualifying. So I think split by phase first then split by paths is better. And match 13.02. What do you think? Hhkohh (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will automatically accept idea if no other editors comment or oppose here Hhkohh (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems much better with the articles more balanced, and the general article provides a useful overview of the format/seeding/round summaries. Also, should the article titles be adjusted (maybe just qualifying?), since the qualifying includes the preliminary round, main rounds, and play-offs? S.A. Julio (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the maximum number of matches a page "should" contain? Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the change to the three pages makes browsing harder plus we now have two pages which go into detail (albeit different areas) about each path. If your going to split it by path, keep teams, seeding, format, matches on the same page so all the information someone could want to know is in the same place, it seems pointless having just match info, although all together it is very long.
 * Splitting into five pages might be a good idea though. 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification has a page for every round in every confederation – and then sub pages for each individual group. You might want a summary page for qualification as a whole, but it may not be necessary as it would effectively be identical to that section of the main page but with top scorers/other relevant stats added at the bottom. Makes editing easier with the two paths on one page as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with you SfS. Better is under 250 matches. If the match is over 250, it is possible that navbox can not display correctly Hhkohh (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think split into preliminary round, main rounds, and play-offs is worse than 5 parts because UEFA says the qualifying includes the qualitying and play-offs per  and UEFA is mentioned main rounds Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there anything to say? If there is no reply in 3 days, we will use option to do UEL split Hhkohh (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Overview article plus five sub-articles of the five rounds is okay for me. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Five articles seems like a bit much, though I'm unsure if there is a better option (other than keeping the current format). Maybe a formal split discussion should be opened on Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round, and then invite members of FOOTY to comment? Also, there is a bit of inconsistency with the CL/EL articles, are we listing the 'preliminary round' as part of the qualifying phase (as seen in the 'Round and draw dates' section), or as a separate phase (currently the section 2018–19 UEFA Europa League is not a subsection of 'qualifying rounds'). I'd say one style should be chosen. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will. Note that this discussion is currently under transculation on WT:FOOTY Hhkohh (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there is much justification for the separate League path and Champions path articles. The same split was executed for the corresponding CL articles and was undone after discussion. The general article on the EL's qualification still exists making the separate articles essentially duplication.Tvx1 18:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cannot merge into one article, see User:Hhkohh/UEL/1/1 for preview Hhkohh (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)