![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have my doubts about that first column. What is the authority on it? It's not synchronized (anymore) with
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/belg-intres.html either, has a gap between 715 and 717, and in my opinion, the non-official (but public) matches should simply be included on this page too. Those matches did happen, so why not record them (even if they don't go in the FIFA records).
I would personally do away with that first column, and move the date to the first column. Or alternatively completely follow
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/belg-intres.html (which includes the non-official matches).
Sygmoral (
talk)
22:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the tables per decade be auto-collapsed? I would personally just leave them 'open': they are the main content of this article, after all. Makes it easier to scroll through all of them, or to search for appearances of a certain country on the page. (I would personally leave the Record per opponent table collapsed, but perhaps that's inconsistent then) Sygmoral ( talk) 20:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
When we finish all those subpages, and I have included dates and scores on this one, I think we will have quite an impressive result. With relatively little changes (most importantly a "more engaging" lead section), I believe this article could probably achieve Featured List status. Not for tomorrow, but something fun to think about :) (mostly because until recently, I didn't even know there was such as thing)
But something related I've been thinking about - although it might sound crazy - is that perhaps, at that point, we should merge everything. Once we have all those subpages, just merge them all together into this page, and do away with the summarized version. After all, those collapsed rows already present themselves as summarizations. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether 750 matches would be an issue performance-wise ... — Sygmoral ( talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The scores I have added so far, I've copied in the exact format that they were presented in the statistics. Meaning that sometimes Belgium is the second number, and sometimes it is the first. I have seen some other pages that have changed the scores so that the 'own team' always appears first. This makes it a lot easier to compare scores - but on the other hand then there's no indication at all on whether the match may have been held on home soil or away. So I'm conflicted about whether this should change!
Of course, this would become an irrelevant point if we would decide to merge all the subpages, as suggested in my wild idea above. :) — Sygmoral ( talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we add the venue as a column for each match? It is quite an important aspect of the match, much more important than whether the match is formally home or away (which is discussed above). Hg03u ( talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the "Legend for encounters". Are those acronyms supposed to be added to the tables? Hg03u ( talk) 19:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belgium national football team results. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have my doubts about that first column. What is the authority on it? It's not synchronized (anymore) with
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/belg-intres.html either, has a gap between 715 and 717, and in my opinion, the non-official (but public) matches should simply be included on this page too. Those matches did happen, so why not record them (even if they don't go in the FIFA records).
I would personally do away with that first column, and move the date to the first column. Or alternatively completely follow
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/belg-intres.html (which includes the non-official matches).
Sygmoral (
talk)
22:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Should the tables per decade be auto-collapsed? I would personally just leave them 'open': they are the main content of this article, after all. Makes it easier to scroll through all of them, or to search for appearances of a certain country on the page. (I would personally leave the Record per opponent table collapsed, but perhaps that's inconsistent then) Sygmoral ( talk) 20:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
When we finish all those subpages, and I have included dates and scores on this one, I think we will have quite an impressive result. With relatively little changes (most importantly a "more engaging" lead section), I believe this article could probably achieve Featured List status. Not for tomorrow, but something fun to think about :) (mostly because until recently, I didn't even know there was such as thing)
But something related I've been thinking about - although it might sound crazy - is that perhaps, at that point, we should merge everything. Once we have all those subpages, just merge them all together into this page, and do away with the summarized version. After all, those collapsed rows already present themselves as summarizations. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether 750 matches would be an issue performance-wise ... — Sygmoral ( talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The scores I have added so far, I've copied in the exact format that they were presented in the statistics. Meaning that sometimes Belgium is the second number, and sometimes it is the first. I have seen some other pages that have changed the scores so that the 'own team' always appears first. This makes it a lot easier to compare scores - but on the other hand then there's no indication at all on whether the match may have been held on home soil or away. So I'm conflicted about whether this should change!
Of course, this would become an irrelevant point if we would decide to merge all the subpages, as suggested in my wild idea above. :) — Sygmoral ( talk) 00:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Can we add the venue as a column for each match? It is quite an important aspect of the match, much more important than whether the match is formally home or away (which is discussed above). Hg03u ( talk) 19:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the "Legend for encounters". Are those acronyms supposed to be added to the tables? Hg03u ( talk) 19:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belgium national football team results. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)