A fact from 2013 FIFA Club World Cup final appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco 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.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Just starting a discussion here on if full substitutes should be listed or just those who are played. I think in the interests of completeness, we should list all the subs named in the match, even if they didn't get onto the pitch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convention is that we don't show the subs for this tournament because the the entire remainder of the squad makes up the subs bench, and there's an article with squad lists. The same goes for international tournaments. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically not necessarily true that all remaining players are on the bench, as suspended players are not there, and sometimes injured players are not listed on the bench either. As long as who is on the substitute bench is verifiable from the match report, I do not see the problem of listing all substitutes. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:Chanheigeorge here the bench are supported by source and I can not see any harm in listing all subs. QED237(talk) 23:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with ArtVandelay on this one. Seems a bit pointless to list all 12 substitutes when only three actually took to the field. Furthermore, let's think of the precedent that this sets: look at the World Cup tournament articles, which will end up having all substitutes listed if this goes ahead. The only relevant ones are the ones who played, so I think we should stick to them. – PeeJay 03:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ArtVandelay and PeeJay2K3 on this as well. But it seems to me that mr. Qed237 already decided that this was a consensus and changed the whole update to full substitutes. I don't understand why he rushed to do it when it wasn't really a consensus. Pretty strange as always. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original edit was with all substitutes and as you had no consensus to remove them I restored the first edit until this is resolved. It is easier to have full info before it is resolved and then remove it than the other way around. Also when I wrote only one editor in this discussion wanted to only have the substitutes, so I beleive my edit was just fine.
And to add to what User:Gsfelipe94 wrote that last sentence is totally rubbish and unneccesary when you already have a warning for personal attack seen here and after that removes my comments without explanation here. If any one is acting strange it is User:Gsfelipe94 who started edit warring and has made edit like this were he unexplained removed attendance (supported by matchreport) and also changed from "report" to "index" for the matchreport without any reason (something he has a habbit of doing like here and here). After I told him to stop live upadting he still continues here (that is when personal attack started). I did not want to bring this up since it has nothing to do with this discussion, but User:Gsfelipe94 cant stop making edits like the last sentence just to provoke me. Soon it will backfire big time. QED237(talk) 11:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it kind of funny how much User:Qed237 gets upset when someone disagrees with him. He says he likes blue, so if you say you don't like it, he starts his whole picking on you thing. That index edit I only did once because I saw that other editors were doing it. Some updates there have edits that were already added by other people as I just copied the full text to edit it again. This is another example of picking on small things when you really have nothing else to do. I'm not surprised that you feel so offended if someone disagrees with your thoughts. You might even feel that this here is another one and will start doing a whole lot of things like you just did. Relax man. Wikipedia is not someone's real life, we're here to help provide good information with their sources and rules so it looks the best way possible for everyone that reads it, including us. This is not a possession of many editors as they seem to think. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to push this much further since no goood can come of it. Just want to respond to a couple of things. First of all you say "That index edit I only did once" when I above gave one, two and three diffs, so I'm interested how that math was conducted. Secondly do you admitt to acting wrong when you reach an edit conflict? When you get edit conflict it clearly states that you should not just copy your text and edit again because what you do in the process is to remove edits from others and that is disruptive editing. What you should do is to compare the different revisions and add the material from your edit that needs adding. If you dont know how to do thi perhaps you should reload the page and restart when you reach edit conflict or not edit at all. QED237(talk) 15:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And one could always wonder who is the one getting upset since I was not the one arguing against the live update consensus and wikipedia policies and also started with personal attacks. If I where you I would calm down and not go after other editors. And btw have fun being blocked for edit warring...QED237(talk) 16:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm interested in how text comprehension is done here. As I clearly said before, only 1 time I changed report to index. It's clearly shown there as the others have many other info and I didn't pay attention to any of it. Other times it might have shown as I copied part of someone else's edit to add other information, as you can see I had some mistakes I didn't see and forgot to erase. I know how that works, but when I was uploading the whole page as one to save many edits and do it directly someone was already uploading section edits a little before the matches ended and then I ended up with the conflict and a lot of information went missing if I simply erased it. Well, it's not the first time I've seen comments about your behavior here. I don't lose time picking links to show that and start saying a bunch of things because I'm mad, cause I'm clearly not. I used irony before sure, but it seems that it was turned into a huge offense, but that's gone now. It's funny that you said that last sentence because I'm sure if I was the one who said anything similar to that, you would be already jumping in your chair and typing many words saying that I was offending you. You're definitely a piece of work, aren't you? I didn't go after other editors, as I'm sure you can check that :) I won't have fun enjoying any block though, it won't happen. Nice to talk to you and hope we don't have to speak again. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk)
Only the players who are subbed in are relevant. The other ones on the bench can be seen on the squad article. Agreet with PeeJay here. Kante4 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
