Talk:2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Stadia

Narva Trans played their home match at Rakvere linnastaadion as their own Kreenholmi staadion does not meet the criteria. [1][2]
Nõmme Kalju moved to Kadrioru staadion for the 2012 season, thus the note about Hiiu staadion not meeting the criteria is irrelevant.[3]

Sadly all notes are numbered and changing them is too much of a hassle, but hopefully there's someone who is more eager than me. – Lipik (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zalgiris stadium doesnt belong to VMFD Zalgiris! The club plays at LFF stadium and renting from Lithuanian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.47.14 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

goalscorers

top goalscorer chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.250.125 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here. -Koppapa (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about one in this article? It is what I came to find here - Migdejong (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Kyiv – Mura

There is new coming from Ukraine that Arsenal have been given a technical 3-0 defeat in the 3rd round qualifying match against Mura. Originally they won 3-0. I guess they fielded Erik Matiku who was disqualified. Source here "Арсеналу" присудили техническое поражение в матче с "Мурой" (Arsenal has been ajudged a technical defeat in their match against Mura) Nothing from UEFA yet - but please be aware. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split due to size

Split - This page should be split due to size like the year prior has been. Thoughts???--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The previous year should not have been split. There were no size issues, IMO. – PeeJay 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article is well over 100 kB, which implies per WP:SIZERULE that is should almost definitely be split.--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Almost certainly" does not mean "certainly". I can't speak for anyone else, but I've had no accessibility issues with this page. Plus, making separate pages for individual rounds (qualifying rounds, no less!) seems unnecessary. I suggest that the members of WP:FOOTY be informed about this thread so that a more rounded discussion can take place. – Pee Jay 23:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the prosesize tool, "readable prose size" for this page is only 6813 B (1187 words), since much of the info is tabular and therefore doesn't count towards the size rule. Now I'm not suggesting that we can keep adding stats and lists to a page indefinitely until it comes to a grinding halt, particularly as this page did take noticeably longer to load for me than other pages, but still it would appear that "Length alone does not justify division" --Jameboy (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As Jameboy said, the page loading loading time for the predecessor was not modest, which is why I support keeping them separate. If the objections continue, I strongly encourage someone to bring the new pages to AfD so that we can hear from more people on the issue.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we AfD them? Chances are the new pages would be retained as redirects, so deleting them would be pointless. The whole point is to retain the information on one page. Furthermore, since the original split was done without consensus, the only course of action is to revert the split. – Pee Jay 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Redirect is one possible result of an AfD, which is why I suggest putting the issue in front of the correct people for discussion. I gave the community one week to respond, and there were no serious objections to splitting.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly there was no concensus to split this page. If the split had been done properly then things may have been different, however the linking in the matches section of round 1 has been broken, so things are not different. I will revert the split as being carried out against concensus and breaking the article. Then we have a proper discussion. JAX 0677, it is usual to allow more than a week before taking unilateral action like this. Op47 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I will leave the toolong and split-apart tags on the article until consensus is reached.--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also usual to inform the appropriate people about an operation as drastic as this, i.e. posting a note at WT:FOOTY would be a good idea. – Pee Jay 00:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The objection to having an article about a single round is why the play-off round was included in this article in the first place. Three and half years ago, when UEFA switched to the current format for its club competitions, much ado was made about the fact that the play-off round was part of the competition proper and not part of qualifying. However, having a separate article on a single round was deemed to be excessive, so the the similarly structured pre-group stage rounds were included in a single article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This page is mostly used for recording the match summaries, which can be accessed through section links. No user should be reading it from beginning to end. So I do not think page size is a big issue here. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]