Talk:UEFA Champions League 2016-2017: Draw for Last 16 held at Nyon

Notes

• UEFA's website has Draw details and commentary in two tabs.
• UEFA's site may flash a message about cookies.
• I did not *write* the article. And the body of the article is copied from last year's article about the draw.
• None of the sources tell who won the respective national football leagues. But, a quick search says:
  • Juventus Manchester United signs Pogba, now costliest player in history

    ...Paul Pogba made his professional debut for United in 2011 after graduating from their academy. He played only seven games before leaving for Juventus the next year. Spending four years with the Old Lady, Pogba has won four Serie A titles...

• • Bayern Munich DFB-Pokal Final: Bayern wins 4-3 in Der Klassiker final

    Bundesliga winners Bayern Munich had 70% ball possession in the game...

• • FC Barcelona Claudio Bravo signs Manchester City

    33-year-old Claudio Bravo joined the Catalonians in the 2014 summer transfer window [...] In two seasons at Camp Nou, Bravo won eight trophies — two La Liga titles...

• • Paris Saint-Germain Footballers Neymar, Zlatan, Nolito sign contracts

    See talk for {{editprotected}} verification: link

Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 15:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The last one of these is confusing. The article in question isn't listed on this article, and I can't understand what the {{editprotected}} request is actually requesting (I'm not the only one struggling, based on the talk page). Surely, who won what must be basic facts; there must be an easier way to source these than drawing tenuous links and hoping non-football-obsessed reviewers can understand them well enough. When I see notes on talk I expect them to make it easier to deal with difficult sourcing issues but here, I'm just confused. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Zlatan won four Ligue 1 titles and two consecutive domestic trebles, I clarified it on the talk page recently. PSG won the Ligue 1 title last season. There can be an easier way: to add a separate source. But, I don't feel like adding the source which hardly helps if we can mine the data from archive. And in this case, I am ready to take the burden to find in the archives.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 20:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Why mine when you could have skimmed from the surface? Which is to say, why make it harder for reviewers? BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

When it is said that we do not need to provide source for some event that has happened and we have published since that was verified then, I am not going to look for an external source. I do not like crowding the source area, additional sources consume more time to review. Here I have shown Juventus, FC Barcelona, Bayern Munich and PSG won the respective leagues and let that be.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The first three were fine (and, when using related articles as sources, notes to aid on what came from where are a great help to reviewers) but the last has gotten wrapped up in an editprotected request that's taken days to resolve. I think I now understand it, finally; had there simply been a fresh source provided here for the minor detail, I most likely would have had this reviewed and published by now (or PiZ would). As it is, I have a prior engagement looming and likely won't be able to handle this today, opting instead for the other two pieces on the queue. It's nice to use previously published stories, very nice indeed, but this story is on the verge of staleness now while we've poured over fixing the other page. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4270158 [Passed]

Revision 4270158 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Tbh, this should have been easier to review than it was. Broadly, be more explicit and specific about sourcing. When there are lots of sources — which is the case here; the fact they're on Wikinews doesn't make them less numerous — specific hints on which info to find where are very useful. For example, one might have embedded html comments after a fact saying where to find it, or after a source or on the talk page saying a certain source is only used to verify such-and-such fact; that sort of thing. The note on the talk page about multiple tabs was extremely valuable; that said, I had a very difficult time trying to find stuff on that site, switching madly and frustratingly around between tabs trying to figure out what was where. More explicit instructions (such as the names of the tabs, and which info to find under which tab) would have helped a lot. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4270158 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Tbh, this should have been easier to review than it was. Broadly, be more explicit and specific about sourcing. When there are lots of sources — which is the case here; the fact they're on Wikinews doesn't make them less numerous — specific hints on which info to find where are very useful. For example, one might have embedded html comments after a fact saying where to find it, or after a source or on the talk page saying a certain source is only used to verify such-and-such fact; that sort of thing. The note on the talk page about multiple tabs was extremely valuable; that said, I had a very difficult time trying to find stuff on that site, switching madly and frustratingly around between tabs trying to figure out what was where. More explicit instructions (such as the names of the tabs, and which info to find under which tab) would have helped a lot. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

{{editprotected}} @Pi zero: is it possible to have "Last 16" in italics?
•–• 11:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: It's not exactly a title, though, is it? Poking around for precedents, the few places I found it in Wikipedia it wasn't italicized, and checking one of the sources, it wasn't even capitalized. --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Though not a trademark, "Last 16" -- the round of 16 has it's importance in the footballing world for UEFA. That was the reason we had the term italicised for UEFA Euro 2016 match reports. UEFA Euro 2016, Last 16: Italy-Spain and England-Iceland and UEFA Euro 2016, Last 16: France-Republic of Ireland, Germany-Slovakia, Hungary-Belgium for example.
•–• 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Also for the headline.
•–• 18:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: What's the markup for changing how the title is displayed? (Something to do with "DISPLAYTITLE"?) --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

{{DISPLAYTITLE:UEFA Champions League 2016-2017: Draw for <span style = "font-style: italic;">Last 16</span> held at Nyon}}

•–• 18:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if this is the way to handle it, but seeing no harm in it, done. --Pi zero (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

if you mean for Italics, there are other ways, but better to use CSS than redundant <i&rt; tag. This one is working and that’s how I got lower case “A” in acagastya on my talk.
223.237.237.54 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Barcelona; Madrid; Manchester; Munich; Lisbon; London

@Pi zero: can you please add the category?
•–• 13:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: there are some more.
223.237.252.110 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I did some more. Historically, I have usually not attempted to categorize articles by the home city of a team mentioned in the article until the team has a local category. (I finally figured out that Lisbon is the home of SL Benefica.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)