Talk:2015–16 Svenska Cupen

links

why are there no links to many players' names on this article? usually articles have links to all players, even those who don't have a wiki page LICA98 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@LICA98: See WP:REDLINK, A red link, like this one, signifies a link to a page that is either non-existent or deleted. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. (...) Articles should not have red links to topics that do not warrant an article. Redlinks are to help editors create articles but if we have redlinks on players that is not notable, then articles that should not be created may be created. Qed237 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

So why do other pages have those links then? LICA98 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@LICA98: What other articles are you talking about? And also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because other pages has links does not make them right. It could be users editing those pages, that are not familiar with our guidelines and add links just like if they were blue. Often redlinks are used when players are notable or might be notable in a near future, otherwise there should be no links. Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Champions League, Europa League, Copa del Rey, most of the other cup pages LICA98 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@LICA98: If you take Champions League and Europa League a lot of those players are notable (everyone who has played in main tournament is notable). Copa del Rey I have no knowledge about. Qed237 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Referee's residence

In match details of the Round 1 section, there refeere's recidences are mentioned. Is this really necessarily? // Psemmler (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In my mind, no. It does not affect the game in any way. Qed237 (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we delete that information? // Psemmler (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

From what I have heard some editors think the information should be there, so it might as well stay now that it exists. But I wont add them myself. To me it does not matter if they stay or if they are removed. Qed237 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've always added the residence of the referee since I thought it was some kind of praxis. Perhaps we should bring it up to WP:FOOTY? // Mattias321 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

To be it doesn't matter so much, I just don't have the time to make a control check where every referee's recidence is. But if you want to add that then you're welcome, because it just seems a bit odd as it is that some match details have that info and some don't. // Psemmler (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, Learn from SVWP!

Learn from Swedish wikipedia, seriously. Inledande omgångar i Svenska cupen 2015/2016 (Round 1 & Round 2). Gruppspelet i Svenska cupen 2015/2016 (group stage). Slutspelet i Svenska cupen 2015/2016 (knockout stage). ALL matches have sources! Goals, matches - audience average is calculated with {{#expr: 1 + 1 + 2}}. It is also the same number of games this year, as last year - 119. The cup has the same format as previous years (after 2011). The number of matches are just as many this year as last year. 79.138.131.11 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and can not be used. If you want to count by using expr, then fine. But dont just add unsourced content. Qed237 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Though it was not without sources, and Wikipedia was not the source IF YOU can read! You were referred to svwp when the sources are there. I'm not going to link 300 sources (300 sources are an exaggeration).

But you do still wrong. (Translated by Google Translate) 94.234.170.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to bold the text, I can read and it just looks outright ugly. You can not demand that I go around myself looking for sources. When you add something, you need to make sure it is sourced (or in this case add expr with the numbers that exists in this article just like I explained). By referring to svwp you say "thats the source, look at that page". Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No no no no! You read wrong. I said all the time that the sources are in the article (s) on svwp. I did not say that Wikipedia was the source. You need to start reading right! (Translated by Google Translate) 94.234.170.159 (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Är Qed237, den jävla besserwissern, nöjd nu? Tidigare IP:et hade rätt. Lär av svwp. 94.234.170.155 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You can not use wikipedia as a reliable source. Qed237 (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Har inte gjort det heller. Har sammanställt resultaten från artikeln, resultaten, som är belagda med källor. Nu får du allt sluta upp med att ljuga. 94.234.170.3 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You told me to look at swedish wikipedia for sources, that is not how it works. You can not guideme to a wikipedia pages, which is not a reliable source, and ask me to look at those sources myself. If you edit on wikipedia, you must provide reliable sources directly. And stop with the partial bolding, it is not a way of proper communication. Qed237 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment removed due to personal attack. Qed237 (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)