Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Italy task force

message: numbers of clubs were not updated for years. I had updated the following clubs to 2010-11 squad:
;Prima Divisione
*F.C. Esperia Viareggio
*A.C. Lumezzane
The following clubs were seems ok
*Calcio Como
*A.C. Monza Brianza 1912
*U.S. Alessandria Calcio 1912
*S.S. Barletta Calcio
Other club seems not ok. To me i suggested remove the squad list section until someone had time to updated to 2011-12 squad in September, as more of them were 2009-10 squad. Matthew_hk tc 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lega Pro squad list

message: Hello there. As you may know, I have carried out an extensive improvement of the quality of the main Parma article and others related to it. However, there is one very important aspect of the articles that is troubling me. As I'm sure some of you know, Parma were formed in the late '60s and technically have no relation to the 1913 Verdi Foot Ball Club. Despite this, the club claim attahement to the club founded in 1913. Unfortunately, I can find no source which says what I believe (and what those in Italy generally believe) to be the truth. As a result, the some of the Parma articles currently refer to a falsehood because I cannot very well write against the only source I can find on the subject. Is anyone aware of any source that might prove my point? Cheers.  Omg †  osh  21:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Parma F.C.]]

message: *articles to create, if you want: Hector John Eastwood, Paulo Innocenti, Anton Kreutzer and Giuseppe Pirandello..
*articles to enlarge, if you want: Bruno Pesaola, Hasse Jeppson, Attila Sallustro and Antonio Vojak.. 93.56.57.198 (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  News from it.wikipedia :).. 

message: In the early years of Serie A teams are clasified only after the points.
Until 2004 the Rules for classification were:
1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
When were this rules introduced?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfb1893 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you're trying to point out. As far as I know, up until the 2004–05 season, if two teams finished on the same points, a tie-breaker game was contested. Since 2005–06 season, head-to-head record was introduced as the primary tie-breaker criteria. Luxic (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  clasification rules in Serie A 

message: After a recent request, I added WikiProject Football/Italy task force to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pageview stats 

message: In 1929–30 Serie B and later editions until to World War II, the map locating the teams' place is a good idea, but the map is wrong. Italy between 1918 and 1947 included also the whole Venezia Giulia, Istria (with Pola and Fiume) included. So using the map with modern Italy, with Fiume (now Rijeka) and Pola (now Pula) in Croatia, is wrong. In this way in the map in 1929-30 Serie B and 1941-42 Serie B Fiumana is located in Croazia, not in Italy, and this is wrong (also placing Grion Pola, the football team of Pola, in Croazia is wrong). The map should be corrected, inserting a map of the Kingdom of Italy between 1918 and 1947, in order to show Fiume and Pola in Italy, not in Croatia.--151.70.48.55 (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 1930s-1940s 

message: As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs. 
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages tool update 

message: Hi everyone. I've made an article Football derbies in Italy, at the moment it is mostly a poorly translated counterpart of its twin brother at Italian wikipedia. There are a ton of redlinks, and there's still a lot of errors, which I'm eliminating one by one but there's only one of me. As you are all part of the Italian football task force, I thought you guys might be able to help out? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! First of all, thanks for your contributions. Unfortunately, I don't think you will find much help here, as this task force has been sort of dormant for quite a while. My suggestion is to seek assistance on the main project's talk page, or else you may look for active users who regularly make edits to Italian football articles and ask them. Personally, I would be glad to help, but to be honest I haven't had much time to spend here lately. As you can see from my history, what I do is mostly keeping AC Milan-related articles up to date and patrolled. Luxic (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I'll update the rest of the article if you remove the formatting so that it is the same as the Alessandria Derby (i.e. remove the italicisation). Please also remove the titles in the Provincial Derbies section. mgSH 17:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football derbies in Italy 

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: Both the English and Italian pages -- though mostly excellent -- are confusing as regards the relegation format.  With 19 clubs, both are written as though 22 clubs still are in the league.  I am not sure if there has been a decision to increase the number of clubs back to 22 in future, or if the exact same relegation/play-out criteria apply now as before, but it is not clear to a non-expert how the system works with 19 instead of 22 clubs.  I wonder if someone who has better knowledge of this than I do would have a look at these pages. The Real Rizman (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The relegation system is unchanged from last season, meaning that the bottom three teams are relegated, whereas the fourth- and fifth-to-last face each other in a relegation play-off (unless the gap between them is more than four points, in which case the fourth-to-last get relegated directly). You can read the full regulations on the Italian FA's website at this link. As for next season, the number of teams is being increased to 20 by simply having five promotions instead of four from Serie C. I checked both the English and Italian version of the current Serie B season articles and they look fine. Luxic (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serie B promotion/relegation 2019 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool