Jump to content

Talk:Football pitch

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football pitch. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Triangular corner flags in English football

[edit]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge the two articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangular corner flags in English football was closed as keep; however, there was some support for some kind of merge in the discussion. This discussion is to test if there is consensus for a merge, or if a separate article is sufficient. Some editors in the AfD argued that merging this to Football pitch argued that a merge would be WP:UNDUE; this will also be discussed in this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is double-jeopardy here, the AFD clearly voted for keeping it. Merging it would be UNDUE as we barely have any mention of corner flags even in the article. The separate article isn't just on the flags themselves, it is about the tradition and culture in English football surrounding them. As this is currently undergoing a time-sensitive DYK nomination, I think it fair we give this a week and decide from there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not double jeopardy; the admin who closed the AfD made it clear that a merge could be pursued if it was deemed appropriate. (It should be noted that The C of E created the article in question, and is naturally in favor of retaining it as a separate entity.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this is not canvassing: this is precisely the reason why I notified all participants of the discussion, as opposed to only editors who took one side. Secondly, Ritchie333 said in his closing edit that a merge discussion could be pursued, which is being what is done here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @BlueMoonset: - merging post-AfD does frequently take the form of double jeopardy, in a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, however in this particular instance the AfD "vote" would be Keep:5 Merge:4 (or K:6, M:5, depending on how my vote is counted), and it was shut with the admin specifically noting that merging could still be considered, and it was just "delete" that was ruled out.

If it is to be merged, I'm not sure whether Football Pitch makes more sense than an FA-oriented one. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm pointing out something that I might not agree with - but if things are even on AfD, then you may get a different merge perspective on the actual talk page. I personally am unsure about which way I want to jump. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not double jeopardy because the closer suggested bringing it here, but I would have voted merge at the AfD if I thought it proper. SportingFlyer talk 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no consensus at AFD and there is no obvious merge target. I don't believe the article is to niche either.Blethering Scot 08:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yards and metres

[edit]

For historical reasons, the dimensions of the pitch are given in whole numbers of yards. I propose we switch the likes of "16.46 metres (18 yd)" to "18 yards (16.46m)". —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change to use the historic, round numbers instead of the modern, high-precision numbers. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous pitch

[edit]

@The Pict's: I see from your edit history that the Sido Makmur SP II Field is one that you are knowledgeable about. I appreciate what appears to be enthusiasm on your part but, please, highlighting it serves no purpose to the present article. Can we remove the image without having to go to Wikipedia arbitration? —Quantling (talk | contribs) 19:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Square football field?

[edit]

From the picture I can see that a football field must be minimum 90 meters long and a maximum of 90 metres wide. Are there any rules about proportional size? Because a square football field would be horrid! Opspin (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_pitch&oldid=1234831417"