Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC first round

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unspaced en dash[edit]

Howard the duck is merely following the vast majority of authoritative style guides in English, and WP:MOSDASH in closing those weird gaps between the score numerals. Please do not revert this again unless you have a very good reason, set out here on the talk page. Tony (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not expect edits to common local conventions (even if they might not be correct) to go through if a request for a reason is made and none is given. Jlsa (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to accept that showing a link to WP:MOS trumps local convention, and isn't a reason to follow what's in there. –HTD 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? Jlsa (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS > incorrect "common local conventions"; sharing a link to the MOS = giving a reason. –HTD 15:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said precisely the opposite. Makes it hard to follow. Jlsa (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. –HTD 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jisa, unspaced en dashes are used for sporting results right through WP. Take a look at the Glossary of Association Football terms. Tony (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone doesn't give a proper reason why we shouldn't follow standard Wikipedia-convention other than "we don't follow them" I'll be changing them once all matches for this round are over. –HTD 15:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and change every football article on wikipedia, thanks. It has been done like that on every article so i don´t understand why you or others want to change that. Kante4 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm doing on this and othcyer AFC related articles (see 2012 AFC Challenge Cup qualification, although probably someone had reverted it to the non-compliant version). Although it is impossible to do that in a short amount of time, that is ultimately the plan. Also the plan includes Template:Rugbybox. –HTD 16:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not getting the sense why it´s been done or the plan. Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't get the idea why there are spaces before and after dashes, too. There are no spaces at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)#Draw, in "Aggregate 4–4. Malaysia advanced on the away goals rule to the Second Round against Singapore", and in normal prose. It only exists in conveying the score at Template:Footballbox. Why? This is not used in the match report (although admittedly, they don't use dashes either, but they don't add spaces before and after the colons).
Amazingly, there are no spaces at UEFA Euro 2008 article or at the official match reports.–HTD 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet amazingly there are spaces at both [CAF mainpage] (see top corner) and [CAF results page]. What is your point here. Can we use them if the official link uses them? Jlsa (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, as you've illustrated that there could be tens of ways to illustrate football scores. Looking at the Premier League website they also don't add spaces. We'd only pick one, in all occasions (prose, results tables, box scores). We can't use spaced dashes on the prose and on aggregate score notes then space them at the box score. Amazingly, this is an encyclopedia, and we'd strive to follow basic typography. –HTD 17:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bring up a single example of your preferred system? Especially prefacing it with a smug little "amazingly" (in italics too!), as if anybody who thinks differently is stupidly going against UEFA, nature and yourself. It hardly helps your case, and really is unlikely to do anything other than annoy the very people you don't want to go around reverting your changes. Jlsa (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought that up was to illustrate the point that unspaced dashes aren't as rare as San Marino's wins. I still have to get a good reason for why should the spaced dashes remain.
Also, why I emphasized amazingly was that I was surprised to see a Wikipedia article heeding the advice of the MOS when it comes to spaced dashes (I was sorta not surprised when I saw the UEFA site as I suspected they should probably get it right). Which brings me to my first point on the un-rareness of this method of conveying scores. –HTD 17:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone ever claimed they were unusual. The claim was just they aren't standard. You also might want to check out your example. In the UEFA Euro 2008 article the group stage results have spaces, and the ones without were only changed in the past few months (see here) about three years after the tournament. Not such a fantastic example to be honest. Jlsa (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was because I said I was surprised. Really. 99% of the time, you'd expect to see the score on the footballbox used spaced dashes. That's why I italicized amazingly. Because it was not standard, but should be. Because a Wikiproject-wide "standard" should discourage editors not to heed the advice of the MOS w/out good reason.
One football-related article that heeds the advice of the MOS, 1923 FA Cup Final, is an FA. In the prose, the scores are unspaced -- I don't think anyone would advocate spaced dashes on those right? On the box score, they're still unspaced, which should be the case for all articles, unless there's a good reason to use spaced dashes. –HTD 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jisa, it's not his preferred system: it's the site's preferred system. Why you would want to cost more horizontal space in a space-poor environment and in a way that is more difficult to parse needs explaining. Tony (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try and get people's names right. That's a preferred system. I doubt that there is any "space-poor" problem here (that comment makes me doubt you know what is being discussed here) I've never seen any issues with the spacing in the template - I can't really see how there could be given that the word "Report" which appears below the scores is almost aways wider than the score is. So, if anything is causing a problem it's that - not some spacing in the scoreline above. Are you sure you know what is being discussed here? Jlsa (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC First Round. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_–_AFC_first_round&oldid=1196662271"