This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hello. Perhaps you could point me to the WT:FOOTY discussion where consensus for including the templates in all club season articles was established. And after that, perhaps you could compare the current Championship table template against the actual league table for matches played 1 February. You'll find that it's been updated for one match played on that date, but not for the remainder.
After the templated version was added to 2013–14 Birmingham City F.C. season, I left it for several weeks, but got fed up with it never being properly updated, and reinstated the rather more relevant table as of the date of the club's last match, which the BCFC season articles had been using since 2011. I had been prepared to put up with a messy, MoS-non-compliant, live table, if there really was consensus to have it, but not if it's going to give the reader false information more often than not. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, the note below Template:2013–14 Football League Championship table says it's been "Updated to games played on 1 February 2014". It's now five days after that date, and the template has not been updated to games played on 1 February, so all Championship club season articles are currently displaying incorrect information. I'm not willing to use a template that, more often than not, gives false information to the reader because no-one, myself included, has the time or interest to keep it up-to-date.
As to the Birmingham season article, it never had a live table. Ever since it had a table fragment at all, it's been explicitly the table as of the date Birmingham last played. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that an encyclopedia shouldn't be prioritising form ahead of content: enforcing a standard format when the information being shown is wrong really isn't an improvement on having lots of different methods of displaying accurate information. I've nothing against the template concept, but its implementation was rushed, and there certainly aren't enough people involved in maintaining it. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Italics are standard protocol for newspaper titles. The Almightey Drill ( talk) 22:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_15#Template:Cop about the second nomination of Template:Cop in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 06:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Template:wprk about the nomination of Template:wprk in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 09:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Please stop removing acceptable information from infoboxes - notation of the the team that knocks a club out of a cup competition is perfectly acceptable information as can be seen here, here, here - all of which have been accepted as Good Articles with it's inclusion. There is no compunction to include that notation but there is also no reason to remove it if it exists. Please stop making diruptive edits. Bladeboy1889 ( talk) 08:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
"Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Mikel Arteta. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."
no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.121.45 ( talk) 15:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes you should stop. I do not accept personal attacks like "retard". QED237 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Giant Snowman 17:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 07:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
To reduce the size of your talk page, you may wish to visit WP:ARCHIVE. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 07:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you've blanked the article, apparently for a deletion request. As far as I know, however, a blanking is only considered a deletion request if the author, who is the main contributor to the article, blanks his own article. Since you have not created the page, I suggest that you bring up the matter at WP:RFD instead. I've reverted your edit for now. Thanks! KJ click here 00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Yes I think it is a good idea, like you said for the smaller teams the table does not get update on the current season page, and with this template it will automatically do it. It is currently being used on Template:2013–14 Eredivisie table & Template:2013–14 Eredivisie table/p. Like I said before, Yes I think it is a good idea and would suggest to create the templates for La Liga. Skyblueshaun ( talk) 09:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
That isn't an up–to–date club season article. I have change the format that I would use. I don't add friendly matches anymore. I have it separated by each competition the club is in. I added a "background" section as the first section and moved the transfers sub–section up with the "background" section. I also have combined the the date and kick–off time columns in the match report table. I have eliminated the "city" column from the same table. I have deleted the "table" section in the match report table and put it in it's own seperate table in it's own sub–section. I have also started to combined minutes played with the appearance and goal table for the squad statistics. The 2013–14 FK Austria Wien season article is an example of how I currently do it. The issue with Italia2006 started here. The very first thing he says to Werner100359, who looks like doesn't have a whole lot of experience, "Please stop editing this article..." In my opinion, Italia2006 has been rude to me in the past and what he said to Werner100359 was rude. The debate seems to have moved over to commas. I have pointed out that there is more than one user who uses commas. Then Werner100359 quoted Italia2006 on my talk page. Kingjeff ( talk) 03:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the footballbox collabsible. I will never use it. Kingjeff ( talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello. We've been through this before, as you may or may not remember. See
#League table template above. Despite my asking you to point me to the WT:FOOTY consensus that required the template to be used, you couldn't didn't. Nevertheless, I have not removed the league table template from the article, despite its having regularly been one or two, or even worse one-and-a-half, matchdays out of date.
Even if there is consensus at WT:FOOTY to use the template for the "current" league table, I'm afraid you can't insist on the removal of the league table as of the day of Birmingham's last game, which is not necessarily the same as the table as of the last Championship matchday. Thank you for your understanding. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 12:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If I were introducing some particular item of code on Wikipedia, I sincerely hope I'd make sure there were enough people interested enough to update the thing completely at the end of each matchday or thenabouts before trying to enforce its use. I don't think it's constructive insisting on us using the thing and then telling us "well, if it's not updated, do it yourself". It does the readers no service if the articles are worse with it than without it. And some are.
But that's by the by. I'm not sure what your problem is with my including a table as of the club's last matchday. Ever since the BCFC season articles included a league table extract, that's what it's been. I'm not including it instead of your template, but as well. You can't really think our readers are so easily confused that they can't tell the difference between a table in a section headed "League table (part) as of the date of Birmingham's last game" and a table in a section headed "Current league table (part)", surely? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are you saying the link [1] doesn't work? It works fine here, and has been in the article for ages to reference the league for Australia. And why remove New Zealand? If you do that, why not remove the MLS and NASL entries for Canada, which surely are the same thing? Nfitz ( talk) 22:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the FPL Talk page, which should have happened in the first place. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 11:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Álvaro Negredo never played for the first team of Real Madrid. He was repurchased and resold immediately. The story is explained in your timeline, it is not necessary appear in the infobox. Thank you. Gringoladomenega ( talk) 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we're starting to have a serious problem on our hands. He won't use the consensus-decided model because he "doesn't like it?" Are you kidding me? The rudeness he references actually has to do with previous incarnations of the same argument. He's just upset he's wrong. How should we go about fixing these articles? Italia2006 ( talk) 00:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Qed237, The club season article that Italia2006 had problems with was the 2013–14 FC Red Bull Salzburg season. I didn't set the format for that article. So, please don't make out like I go around arbitrarily deciding to impose my own format on other users. Please show me if there has been any consensus about the collapsible boxes. When I start a club season article, it's I, the creator of the article, that decides the format. If another user takes issue with me about my format, I am willing to use consensus. here. By the way, I am absolutely insulted that I wasn't informed about this discussion about me. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
— before commenting here. Kingjeff didn't create articles with his own format, he converted them. I understand YOU using the format that you do because it's been in place for such a long time. But take a look at 2011–12 FC Bayern Munich season and you'll see that Kingjeff has done this only recently and has no legitimate reason to do so. Italia2006 ( talk) 21:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey QED. Thanks for pointing out my mistake there, I was being somewhat lazy with checking my facts. However, I was still correct to add City as confirmed to be in the 2014-15 season. Please also observe from your own source that Norwich and West Brom can only score 58 points apiece. They are also due to play each other, thus guaranteeing that one or both must fail to reach 57 points and thus City are confirmed safe for the following season.
I actually ran a few scenarios on a PL prediction table which allows you to predict scores and see how it affects the table. There are actually so many teams down the bottom on just a few more points than Sunderland, and yet who each must play other bottom-half teams so many times, that I struggled to even get City to finish below 10th. Simply put, there are far too many dropped points from bottom-end clubs playing each other for City to not be safe. Falastur2 Talk 22:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I was going through stats of Mesut Ozil and found them not updated. Hence, I made some edits to the stats table for Mesut Ozil based upon the link number 90. I just saw that you have reverted those edits. Can you please verify the edits and make the necessary updates? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushkar.np ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
The templates I mentioned on Kante4's page are {{ fb}} and {{ fbw}}. If substitution is used with these templates, instead of substituting a wikilink, it substitutes {{ flag}} with three parameters ( | altlink = women's national football team | altvar = football | mw = women's ) for the fbw template. I had simply put a wikilink and {{ flagicon}} which was replaced by the fbw template here. I feel if the wikilink is a proper one, there is no reason to replace it with a template that transcludes another template. EddieV2003 ( talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm having more experience of the user who reverted my clarifications without explanation. He then reverted my copyedit to an intro paragraph, changing it from constant gerund to past tenses with a very poorly written note that I was, to paraphrase, inserting the entire article into that paragraph. I think WP:COMPETENCE comes into play here as I am not convinced of his English language ability. The Almightey Drill ( talk) 21:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Man, stop threatening me and wanting to intimidate me, I get me with another user.-- User:Gringoladomenega ( talk) 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there QED, AL from Portugal "here",
i did not revert anyone at this article, only consulted the page as the other fellow user asked me to. Sincerely (it's always the best policy) i do agree with him, at least in box, what's the limit for playing positions in the box?
In Giovani's case, methinks FORWARD would suffice marvelously, but that's just me. I also agree the fellow user "at hand" should use more summaries and discuss things more thoroughly, but he's in no way a vandal, no siree.
Happy editing/weekend -- AL ( talk) 04:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Speaking about a related matter ( Diego Costa), messaged the other user that has been involved in the articles recently, about having all my changes reverted (and i do write summaries, unlike Gringo), my message was summarily removed without one word of reply, but he did leave the interaction between himself, you and a BLOCKED user, so in his eyes i'm worse than a WP disruptive editor, fair enough. Don't know why people act like that towards me (Almigthey is not the first to do so, nor is he the fifth or the tenth), really saddens me.
Attentively -- AL ( talk) 20:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Many MANY thanks :) -- AL ( talk) 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
He's been warned for copyvio, if he does it again I will block. I've removed the admin icon and told him not to repeat. Giant Snowman 13:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do You keep on edit Allsvenskan ??? The best position that (my team) Landskrona BoIS ever has achieved is 3rd, in 1937/38. Please see https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotbollsallsvenskan_1937/1938. At this time goal ratio was used to differ teams with the same points, not goal difference. And Helsingborgs 36/27 > 40/31. This is very well known, and not forgotten among supporters of Landskrona BoIS. Specially since it was their main local rivals Helsingborg that benefited from the goal ratio system. Are You some kind of Sock Puppet for Reckless ? (Sorry, but I have to ask) Boeing720 ( talk) 21:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi mate. I see what you're trying to do by reverting people who don't update timestamps when they update stats, but wouldn't it make more sense for you to simply check the stats and update the timestamp yourself, then leave a message on the offending editor's talk page? It would save us from having out-of-date articles and might not discourage new editors from contributing. (I realise I'm probably guilty of doing that myself in the past, but I hope that doesn't preclude me from giving advice!) – Pee Jay 00:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
~~ Sintaku Talk 15:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was wrong. Salzburg isn't the champion yet. -- Davidsousa1 ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
195.249.52.234
Thanks. 85.243.219.108 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Just confused when the scores in there are "2" and "7" in the aggregate columns. ~~ Deepak ( talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
No name calling, friend, don't be so precious. :) "...it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere." But please feel free to follow your own advice. Ribaldry ( talk) 15:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Cheers for the advice and the threat, big dog. Ribaldry ( talk) 15:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
And as I said... It's a term of affection. I'm just at a loss to understand why you'd revert someone's edits entirely over the singular and rather small issue of a timestamp. It would have saved us both time if you had simply left a message on my talk page informing me I had failed to update it, allowing me to swiftly correct my mistake without having to re-do my edits. If you could brush up on your interaction with other users I'm certain it would make Wikipedia a better place. :) Ribaldry ( talk) 15:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2014_FIFA_World_Cup&diff=600944593&oldid=600939847 ? Seriously? MarcosPassos ( talk) 15:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
You reverted a bunch of edits referencing an inaccurate criterion. Get your facts straight and reference the proper guidelines before reverting a ton of information. His change of nationality is binding effectively ENDING his German national team career. He can't switch even if he wants to. You then followed that up by deleting a bunch of factual SOURCED info. All of that is pertinent and allowed under WP FOOTY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellas12345 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Regarding my edits to the 2013-14 Championship table, first time I didn't notice that the rankings didn't change along with the points and the second time I had to leave mid-edit and I figured it was better to do some than none at all, especially considering that everyone else on Wikipedia hadn't updated the table in a while. I wasn't trying to be purposely disruptive. Imlikeaboss ( talk) 06:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly unpleasant, the best thing to do is ignore it. Revert and report - see WP:DENY which gives advice on how to deal with editors like that. I have deleted it from the history and warned them about it. If it happens again I'll block. Any further problems let me know! Giant Snowman 19:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 16:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So... because the chosen external source is incorrect your wiki playbook that you blindly apply suggests to you that the best course of action is to repeat the error even though it's obviously wrong (and even contradicts other parts of the same page). Well done. Slow clap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.90.81 ( talk) 03:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Markus Rosenberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I might be wrong to be honest. When I last edited the 2013–14 Gibraltar Premier Division page it was notified that Lincoln Red Imps FC have won the league so that's why I posted it on the first qualifying round of the 2014–15 UEFA Champions League. -- Skyblueshaun ( talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
why does Wikipedia disallow live scoring? I believe it adds to viewership as users can come to Wikipedia directly to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chazaloe ( talk • contribs) .
There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 03:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Fb round2 2012–13 FA Cup 4R has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
IagoQnsi (
talk) 22:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The information I added needs to be in the article. You are right about it not being an award, but you can't shun its relevancy. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The easiest way to understand how Hull City is not, at least yet, qualified to the UEFA Europa League is reading the redistribution rules at 2014-15 UEFA Europa League. There you will understand that there is a way Hull City cannot qualify, which is if Hull City lose the final AND Arsenal fail the Champions. In that case, Arsenal would qualify to Europa League both through league and cup. So, the cup berth would get vacated and would be assumed by another league team, NOT Hull City. Hull City will go to Europe either if they win the cup OR if they lose AND Arsenal go to the Champions. If after reading those rules you still have questions, please discuss it.-- 2.82.105.184 ( talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
official matches: Andrés Iniesta in the national team of Spain is 94 because the friendly against Equatorial Guinea was suspended by FIFA SoulGooner ( talk) 17:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this looks to be a case of WP:DUCK - but I think we need you need a formal WP:SPI to confirm as there is just slightly too much doubt. Giant Snowman 11:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there QED, AL "here",
please (PLEASE) bear with me on this one! My reasoning is the following: if you are going to refer to a given competition's season (in this case the 2013/14 Champions League), you most definitely have to refer to the competition proper, it's more arranged and logical i think.
I apologize for the English error ("win it"), although i fail(ed) to see where the gross mistake is (a football game is a thing, so i thought "it" was accurate), i have already reached a compromise in the said part of storyline.
Attentively, from Portugal -- AL ( talk) 11:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Why did you re-put the tournamentqualified next to AS Monaco, Mathmetically Monaco have now qualified for the 2014–15 UEFA Champions League#Group stage. -- Skyblueshaun ( talk) 20:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't update the league, I only updated this season's league place. Mattythewhite ( talk) 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello Qed237, that is why we have multiple people editing an article. I'm sure you have also missed parts of an edit. Everyone inevitably misses a part here and there. In the near future, simply correct my edit or add whatever I was missing.
Regards,
-- Ovinod ( talk) 23:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
It is up to you whether you want to believe me or not. As you can see I updated multiple parts of the article, and in regards to it being the part I liked, that is untrue. I'm not a devoted Arsenal fan nor ever will be. If you are one of the editors that updates the entire section, then congrats to you. We are all different, otherwise this world would be no fun, won't you agree?
-- Ovinod ( talk) 23:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I know you are interested in "semi-automatic updated" league tables through templates. Over the last season I have noticed two mayor problems: 1) People don't update the helper template and 2) People mix up switch statements. To counter this, I have designed {{ 2014–15 Eredivisie table}} in a different way by separating the standings and lay-out. Look through the template for all details, but in effect I made the following changes:
I do think this new set-up will be more manageable, because only one file needs to be updated throughout the season. Only time will tell whether there would be other issues arising. It might be worthwhile considering to create other league tables in a similar manner for the 2014–15 seasons. CRwikiCA talk 19:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Regarding your Banana191 Talk page message, May 3 (US style) is an acceptable format per Acceptable date formats so would not be considered disruptive editing. Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 20:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Where is the otherwise anyway??
Thanks you for pointing that one out, It seemed a bit of a 50/50 situation as Steaua & Astra meet in the final but both teams have already qualified for a European competition. The note on the 2014–15 UEFA Europa League page is as follows "Astra Giurgiu will enter the third qualifying round instead of the second qualifying round if they win the 2013–14 Cupa României. If instead Steaua București win the cup, the runners-up of the 2013–14 Liga I (Petrolul Ploiești or Astra Giurgiu) will enter the third qualifying round." Skyblueshaun ( talk) 08:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you really think the details about Wilson's goals are that relevant to the article? In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make how they were scored? – Pee Jay 23:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello QED237. Since you are arbitrating on the analysis I've made of the Premier League scorers since 1992-93 will you tell me what sources of data you consider to be reliable and if checked and cited you will allow my edits to stand? On what authority are you able to determine the reliability of the sources quoted? -- Ratchet8865 ( talk) 15:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've thoroughly checked these 2 sources before making my assertion that:
This was also the first time any club had 3 players ( Sergio Agüero, Edin Džeko and Yaya Touré) each score more than 15 league goals in a season in the Premier League era. [1] [2]
I haven't been able to find any other online sources which go back further than a few years of PL history.
Hello Qed237, do you know who is risen from the gibraltar second division in the premiere division and relegation is out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjTakido ( talk • contribs)
Hi Qed237, Please can u update the league in 2014-15 Premier League because it says Stoke city 38 points. Evertonfc13 did it.
Thanks
Kwennington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwennington ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It alright now he has done it.
Thanks for help anyway.
Kwennington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwennington ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Here are the standings on one round to the end of the Macedonian league:
On one round to the end, there are 2 more spots left for Europa League and they will be decided between Turnovo, Vardar and Shkendija (with the top 2 of those going to EL).
For Turnovo to finish behind Vardar and Shkendija, Vardar and Shkendija will have to win in order to reach/pass Turnovo in the points, and Turnovo will of course have to lose in the last round. However, even in that case Turnovo will end ahead of Shkendija on the table as they will be tied in points, but Turnovo will have better face-to-face results against Shkendija with 2 wins and 1 loss . That means in this case, Vardar and Turnovo will take the two spots that lead to EL, and Shkendija will be the team to be left out.
However, that would be the situation only in case if Metalurg either wins or loses. In case if Metalurg ties (as you brought out), then the table will end up a bit more complicated and will look like this:
In this case, there will be an additional table deciding the 3rd, 4th and 5th position, made out of the results between these 3 clubs only, and that table will include the following results:
(Results between these 2 teams: Metalurg 1W,1D,1L=4pts and Shkendija 1W,1D,1L=4pts)
(Results between these 2 teams: Metalurg 1W,1D,1L=4pts and Turnovo 1W,1D,1L=4pts)
(Results between these 2 teams: Turnovo 2W,0D,1L=6pts and Shkendija 1W,0D,2L=3pts)
All 3 teams and their encounters combined together:
Meaning that even in this situation, Turnovo will still end ahead of Shkendija and so secure a spot in the Europa League.
That means that regardless if Turnovo loses in the last round and regardless of the outcome of Vardar, Shkendija and Metalurg, Turnovo will in any case get a spot in the EL, and the only spot open will remain to be decided between Vardar and Shkendija.