Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

Template:WPF navigation

Standardisation of European Competition qualification highlighting colours

I've recently been looking around a lot of league table pages in Europe, and I noticed the colours used vary quite a bit (base colours, not just shades). Red for relegation seems universal but people use different colours to show qualification for the 3 European competions (shortly to become 2). I was thinking this could be something worth coming to a consensus on. It'd make it easier to recognise when going between different leagues and just make wiki more co-ordinated. Aheyfromhome (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need colours for European qualification but they are useful for highlighting promotion and relegation in a league table, particularly where a playoff team might get promoted over higher-placed teams. Gold for champions, green for promotion and red for relegation? Would be need to fairly light to avoid intruding too much, I'd say. •Oranje•·Talk 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be standardization, escpecially on old seasons. My suggestion would be

  Winner

  Play-off

  Relegated

Some other colors might be "needed" for other things, If you look for example at the current Premiership table. Chandlertalk 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, if the colour could simply be the background of the league placing, rather than the whole row, it would look neater. •Oranje•·Talk 14:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the colour choice. I don't think there's anything wrong with shading across the row either as long as the info can be clearly read.

I don't want be all dramatic, but maybe this discussion will naturally/should grow a bit wider. There's a host of table formats out there. Like Oranje says, some highlight numbers and not rows. Some have letters (eg (P)/(R) on them etc. Maybe there's room for some standard European footy table format to be established in the English wiki. It's not exactly a major problem but it's still worth considering. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need reminding, but I'm going to do it anyway :) Please, when choosing colours, have a look at WP:COLOUR with regard to accessibility. Out of consideration for those of us with defective vision or using a monochrome display, colours used should have an adequate level of contrast, and colour shouldn't be the only method used to convey meaning. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

While generally in favour of uniformity, even the shades above seem far too dark for me. Keep them to the palest pastel shades you can, and you'd have my vote. - fchd (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Red and greens are usually the primary colours effected by colour blindness.--Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say red and green somewhat is universal for "bad and good" like traffic signs etc. And I think it would look weired for everyone else if its like purple for winning and orange for losing. Or something like that сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While colors for promotion/relegation are usually the only ones used on lower division leagues, I think we still should have a standardized set of colors indicating European qualification for the highest league levels.  ARTYOM  11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I looked around at many of the articles for leagues, the worst i found was Eredivisie which looks really messy. This would be my extended proposal with the colors I liked most from league articles, found here in my sandbox. And plus that I would suggest adding a Comment or Note column to the far right on all tables where it actually also say "UEFA Champions League Group stage" or "UEFA Intertoto Cup third round" etc. сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like this proposal. But, before I start my further comments, I want to point out - highlight colors of Premier League and Liga I (of Romania) in your sandbox show up in black on my browser (which is Internet Explorer 7). Am I the only one seeing this?

Other than that, I like the colors you chose. The only problem I see is that on my 5-year-old LCD screen it's hard to differentiate between the different shades of green, and even between the light green and light blue. So I would suggest making the shades of the same color differ more than they do now. Regarding the Comment/Note column - I personally don't like it because the class of tables usually used for league standings is wikitable sortable. If the reader actually tries to "sort" the columns by clicking on the arrows, this last column with comments usually messes up. Try to do so at La Liga 2007-08, for example, and you will see what I mean. For this reason I would just prefer a key defining colors beneath the standings table.  ARTYOM  11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Chandler) Regarding the colours, I can't tell many of the top ones apart, but then I wouldn't expect to; however the red(?) at the bottom is too dark so the blue print is hardly visible against that background. WP:COLOR specifically warns against that combination, though probably a paler red(?) wouldn't cause a problem. Adding a note column on the right would be a perfectly acceptable alternative for those of us that can't use the colour-coding.

(To Artyom) the reason the notes column on La Liga 2007-08 messes up the sorting is because it uses rowspan for when one note applies to more than one row; if each row has its own note it'd be repetitive but it wouldn't break the sorting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Artyom), Hmm why it's black I suspect might be because i use the 3 digit code for the colors #cfc instead of #ccffcc for example... IE maybe can't read them? (I updated all to be 6 digits at least). Well I know it might be hard to see the difference between the colors but, for this if you have lets say 5 different colors for CL either the lightest one gets to light, or the darkest one gets to dark. One thing you could do (though you'd lose the "universal standardization") is to have same colors, but as most countries at the top only send teams to two different stages in the tournaments you'd only use the top "highest" greens yellows or blue for example. So you'd only need 2 (or maybe 3) instead of 5(4/3) shades of every color.

(To Struway) Hmm, weird that the red is to dark for you... For me it's really easy to disambiguate them.

What you could do (which i restrained myself from in the beginning because i think the darker shaders become to overpowering) is to have "two" jumps between the colors, or what you'd call them, instead of going from "afa > bfb > cfc > dfd > efe" you go "afa > cfc > efe>" though here if you need 5 colors you'd have to start at 80ff80 or how it counts the darknessChandler ♠ TALK 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that 3 digit codes are displayed incorrectly in IE only with bgcolor=#xxx parameter, but are fine if put into style="background:#xxx;".  ARTYOM  13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I made some changes in another sandbox here with more difference between the colors, made both reds lighter etc. The big problem I have with this one though, is that the colors seem to be overpowering Chandler ♠ TALK 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the colour choices you've made, but in my opinion, the colours used for the Champions League First qualifying round, UEFA Cup First qualifying round, and Relegation playoff are way too light. I find it hard to differentiate between them and the default background colour. – PeeJay 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Overpowering colors shouldn't be a problem, IMO, because right now some league tables use even more overpowering colors.  ARTYOM  13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, what's required of coloured things is 1) some alternative way for people who can't do colours to tell what the colour-coding is supposed to mean, like a Notes column; and 2) there being enough contrast between the print and the colour chosen, so that the print (in this case, the team names and any wording in a Notes column, if that's going to be coloured as well) can be read clearly. Depending on the relative intensity of the shades used, blue on red can be problematic even for people with "normal" colour vision. Your lighter red works much better for me. cheers, your friendly neighbourhood colour-blindness correspondent, Struway2 (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's necessary place an invitation for this discussion on all articles that could be affected by this. Without the cooperation of those that are editing those articles, it could lead to serious discussions when trying to implement any change.--ClaudioMB 00:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably true... though I would guess most heavy editors of football leagues are participants here?... But before we post on the leagues it might be better to have some more, and working for everyone (or at least as many as possible). CHANDLER 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be afraid that dozens of editors will come here and make this discussion too long. I've done such invitation before, probably only few that really care about the subject will show up. But, exactly those few ones have a good expediency to share and could get really unhappy finding out only when this is done. Don't keep only here, like a close club, invite people, they will appreciate. Regards. --ClaudioMB (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the colors: UEFA Champions League First qualifying round and UEFA Cup First qualifying round are way too light, can't see them. Another thing, Promotion and Relegation is better than Promoted and Relegated because some tables are for current seasons. Just one more thing, to meet Wikipedia:Accessibility only colors are not enough, it's necessary some text.--ClaudioMB (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I'll take some time to put messages on leagues, but which article to post on Premier League or Premier League 2007-08 or both? chandler 05:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And just have to ask, to make it easier, is there a way to "mass" edit all articles under a certain category Category:2007-08 domestic football (soccer) leagues for example, because there's a lot of them ;) chandler 05:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am of the different opinion to ClaudioMB in that the paler colours are fine, it is the darker ones for the later entry stages I have a problem with when text is overlaid on them. However, I do agree with his point about accessibility and that explanatory text is needed as well. - fchd (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorta in the same corner, I have no problem seeing the pale colors, but think that darker colors can become really overpowered. One place I think this is clear at right now is Eredivisie 2007-08 chandler 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree now that a separate comments column should be added to the tables. But we have to make sure not to use rowspans, for the reason discussed above.  ARTYOM  09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. Rowspan really screws sortable... There's no way to work around it, because without rowspan I can look bad with "Champions League group stage" twice ← chandler 04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

New league table

Excuse me, I found a lot of league table does not use a new table format. Is that table difficult for use? Raymond Giggs 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't find either table difficult to use, tbh. – PeeJay 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. However, when I edit the table to the new version on the articles Fußball-Bundesliga 2007-08 and Serie A 2007-08, it always be reverted. I cannot get the meaning. Raymond Giggs 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You should first discuss the issue with the related article's main editors in the corresponding talk pages. That's why your edits are probably always reverted. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so should first make a proposal, and then make it real if a consensus is reached in its support. --Angelo (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the related article is too wide. It is not only include for two leagues only, but various leagues that may include Argentina, Japan, etc. So I cannot make the discussion only there. Raymond Giggs 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not like the new table, but I will no longer revert the Serie A one (to KyleRGiggs' relief) and wait for consesus one way or the other. We don't need a sortable table and the points column has been moved over to the right again, which does not conform to the Serie A tables for all the other years. To me, this is just an example of someone who designed his own template wanting to push it on to everyone else.Juve2000 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Caretaker Managers

Should caretaker managers be added to manager lists on club pages and to a club's manager template? Ck12 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say article yes, template no. GiantSnowman (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

List of association football rivalries

There seem to be too many "rivalries" on that page. If you escpecially look the International Rivalries... Englands rivalries include, Germany, Scotland France, Russia, Spain, Nortern Ireland, Ireland, Croatia, Portugal, Japan, Australia, Argentina, USA... Ok, Argentina.. sure, Germany, yea.. Ire, N.Ire, Sco and Wales (which isnt on there) I could agree on. But the others? Really? Croatia has probably just been added because of them being in the same Euro Q group. USA has Canada, Mexico, Iran, Italy, China, Russia, England, Japan, France, Germany... Are these football rivalries or (old and current) political rivalries? I at least think it should be shortened and maybe bring in some sort of reference need. Chandler ♠ TALK 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I do think England - Portugal qualifies, though. Is the Portugal - Greece one based solely on Euro 2004? One game does not a rivalry make. matt91486 (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They met two times in Euro 04 ;) though ofc that doesnt count as a rivalry... About ENG-POR, I've never really heard any special rivalry of those countries (though it could easily have slipped me by, I'm no expert on rivalries) Chandler ♠ TALK 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole "rivalry" thing isn't that big of deal in England anyway. I can see some notability about rivalries with Scotland, Argentina and Germany, but that's about it. - fchd (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just have to add also (even though I havent looked through these articles totally) Local derby and Major football rivalries somewhat seem to be about all the same things, with at lot of the same info, escpecially on Local derby and List of association football rivalries. Chandler ♠ TALK 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• England v Japan???!?!?!?! Where on earth did someone dream that up from? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed all the England rivalries except Scotland, Germany and Argentina. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm French and I'm happy to learn that there is a rivalry between my country and Russia and Romania...Spain barely, Italy and Germany OK. Definitely need to be sourced.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeag, it definitely has some dodgy rivalries, needs referencing badly. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the USA national team has a strong rivarly with any nation other than Mexico. Certainly Iran, China, Russia, Japan and France must be removed (the teams have only played rarely). I think I understand why Germany, Italy and England are listed, but one or two matches don't make a rivarly and they should be removed. Also, while the USA and Canada do face each other occasionally, I don't think it's often enough to constitute a rivarly (probably the women's teams should be listed as having a rivarly, but not the men's teams). Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Team and competition logos

Project members might like to look at Wikipedia:Fair use review, notably the sections WP:FUR#Image:UCL2007Final.jpg and WP:FUR#These_Logos, where it is being asserted by editors most opposed to "non-free content" that logos for competitions and national teams do not significantly add to the relevant articles, and should be removed. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the editor who nominated the national team logos is now beginning to put forward a position that club badges should not be permitted in articles about football clubs...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to argue against it. Sports logos have always been allowed. Despite the ridiculous nature of their argument that flags can supplant national team logos, it's surprisingly hard to argue against, even though I can see the benefits of having the more accurate image. especially to people who don't care about sports. matt91486 (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think they dislike sport, or can't really be involved if they think a countries FA's logo can be replaced by the flag. There is also no substitute for club crests, or for that matter that UCL pic... I mean nobody has complained about the 05 and 07 once. From their arguments it seem that no picture enhances the experience for the reader ← chandler 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea is minimalist nonsense that betrays an utter lack of appreciation or understanding. Idiotic proposals of this sort suck the joy out of being here. I have no use for guys who live in a one-dimensional world and think that they should inflict their austere views on the rest of us. Nitwit. Jeez. Wiggy! (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I may agree with you on some points, there's no need to insult the guy. – PeeJay 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a clueless suggestion and he should get a grip on the notion that being a narrow sighted rules pounder is not always particularly appreciated. Why should a minority technical view be allowed to cause other contributors so much consternation? That kind of nitpicking is its own sort of passive aggressiveness and hardly better than trolling. He failed utterly to describe any sort of benefit to accompany the suggestion outside of fitting some narrow definition of what's "right" according to the rules without giving due consideration to a commonly accepted practise which also takes place within the rules. So, for the record, you can put me down as strongly opposed to the notion and the need for even having made the suggestion. Please. Wiggy! (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, if no one but me is countering him on the other thread, he might get his way. So I'd ask for some more back-up. matt91486 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fifa rules regarding national leagues vs. national teams

Quite a long title, eh? :)

Not exactly Wiki talk... but I hope it's ok.

I recently discussed the All Ireland League issue on Xtratime (please take the time to read it). One fellow said there is some sort of FIFA/UEFA rule that every member nation has to have an own league to keep its national team (with Liechtenstein the ONLY exception) and said this was the key reason why the Welsh FA finally established a national league in 1992.

Is this true? I searched through some of the official documents available from FIFA and UEFA, but no luck.--Edgar (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the League of Wales was established because UEFA ruled that teams could only qualify for European competition by winning a domestic league (whereas previously Welsh teams had qualified by winning the not-exactly-challenging Welsh Cup) rather than anything to do with the national team but I might be wrong........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The home nations are different, they are regulated by the IFB, not FIFA, so I wouldn't read to much into those associations (that statement is a gross over simplification). The US didnt have a league, and setting one up was a condition of them hosting the 94 world cup, but had an international team. (I concur with Chris on the Welsh situation) Fasach Nua (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The IFAB is a seperate organization that develops the Laws of the Game (rules for matches), as per a very old agreement with FIFA, and have nothing to do with how the game is actually organized (FIFA regulations). It is older than FIFA and consists of the FA, the Scottish FA, the Welsh FA, and the Irish FA (N. Ireland). All of those FAs are members of FIFA, and, I assure you, they are regulated by FIFA.

AFAIK there is no such rule requiring a nation to have a league in order to have a national team. The reason they created it, was so that Wales would be allowed to have a team in the UEFA Champions League, which was founded in 1992, without requiring Cardiff City and the other Welsh teams that play in the English league system from qualifying through the also newly created Premier League. Winning the Welsh Cup had previously earned these England-based Welsh clubs a virtually guaranteed spot in the UEFA Cup or Cup Winners' Cup, and it was decided that clubs could not compete in both the FA Cup and Welsh Cup, which has partly lead to the latest controversey over Cardiff's reaching the FA Cup Final.

Liechtenstein has its own national cup competition, but not its own league (they play in the Swiss Super League, but not in the Swiss Cup), so they only have a guaranteed berth in the UEFA Cup, like Wales once did, whereas they have to compete with Switzerland for Champions League spots. Hope that helps. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein teams can not qualify for the CL spots through the Swiss league, as the Swiss FA will not nominate them. Liechtenstein teams are not members of the Swiss FA. --Edgar (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That provides even more of an incentive for Wales to have its own league so as not to suffer the same fate. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have proof that Liechtenstein teams can't get into the CL through the Swiss Super League? That seems completely wrong to me, as it would mean Liechtenstein teams have no possibility at all of getting to the UEFA Champions League. - MTC (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it :) But it makes sense. Liechtenstein teams do not play in the Swiss Cup. LI teams are not members of the Swiss FA. There are two separate entries in the UEFA coefficient table for Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Let's say FC Vaduz does win the SSL. Do their coefficient points count for Liechtenstein or for Switzerland? I think I'll send an e-mail to the Swiss and Liechtenstein FAs to get an official statement. I still don't have an answer regarding the one league - one national team issue.--Edgar (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have it now. Sort of. I wrote an e-mail to FC Vaduz and Axel Bernhardt (their press officer) confirmed - Liechtenstein teams can't qualify for European football through the Swiss league system.--Edgar (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is why the Welsh Premier League was created -> "The Welsh Premier League was born out of political necessity in 1992. Welsh football had lost a (British) championship and not yet found a role. This situation was being exploited in FIFA circles by African and Asian nations who resented the independent status of the four British associations, and who saw the participation of the senior Welsh clubs in English football as a contradiction of that status. The problems set by local geography and the economy, together with the presence of its powerful English neighbour, had prevented Wales forming its own national championship until the F.A. of Wales took the initiative twelve years ago and founded the League of Wales." A brief history of the league--Edgar (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MLS team infobox

I was just looking at Toronto FC's article, and I wondered why MLS teams have a different infobox to football clubs from other countries. I mean {{Infobox football club}} is good enough for everyone else, so why is the MLS different? – PeeJay 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'm surprised the image of the team kits isn't violating the fair use policy - surely this should be the standard basic Template:Football kit? I can see no indication on the image source site (btw, this seems to be used on all MLS team pages) that the images are free to be used elsewhere. •Oranje•·Talk 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. All images from that website should be deleted, and MLS teams' infoboxes should be replaced by {{Infobox football club}}. – PeeJay 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me that there's two infoboxes (one a template, one raw code) for season articles. Naturally, I didn't realise this before I recently created around a hundred of the blessed things using the latter one. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay, the MLS template needs to go, to be replaced with the normal template that EVERY other club article uses...GiantSnowman (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've dealt with the Toronto FC infobox. Now for the other 17 past, present and future MLS teams. – PeeJay 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a big job to be sure, but as you do it please take care to transfer over all information that has a corresponding home in the standard infobox. I had to restore the team logo to the DC United page (having double-checked against Columbus Crew to ensure that logos were permitted adornments). Also, are you taking any measures to re-integrate non-standard information, or simply removing it? JohnInDC (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that I missed out the DC United logo. Thanks for putting it back in for me. – PeeJay 18:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in late here, but I just found this discussion. I object to using the standard football template since that template currently doesn't use American English for the American teams. If there is an objection to the current MLS team alt template I'd prefer to see them reverted to the previous MLS Infobox template {{MLS team}} that didn't utilize the pictures in question but did utilize American English. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The San Jose Earthquakes article currently shows the template I'm referring to. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair comment about the US English, but does the infobox really need all that extra guff like "Supports' groups", which no other clubs in the world have in their infobox.........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe so. Supporters groups sanctioned by a team are a very unique thing to soccer. If anything maybe adding it to the other Soccer infobox should be considered. Frankly I consider the infobox being added to be too sparse. Lacks basic info like founding date, owner, etc... About the only thing I wouldn't mind being removed from MLS team template is the largest win and worst defeat. That's beyond basic info. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of foundation is in the standard football/soccer infobox. In fact, other than the things you say could be dispensed with, the only things in {{MLS team}} but not in the standard box are "first game" (generally lost in the mists of time for teams outside the US), "supporters' groups", "all-time leading scorer" and the trophies...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well those and the American English. But if no one objects to MLS teams using the MLS infobox minus the "Worst defeat" and "Biggest win" I'd suggest we modify the MLS infobox to remove those two and utilize that box. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the people that want to remove the MLS team infoboxes are not the ones that normaly edit MLS pages. Also a discussion should take more than a couple hours before action is taken. The MLS team infoboxes have been around for years and no one has objected to thm until now. They provide more basic information than the "standard" football infoboxes and should be kept. KitHutch (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; infoboxes for the same subject should be standardised, and any minority versions depreciated. From WP:IBX, the point of infoboxes is for "similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format". {{Infobox Football club}} is listed as a primary template, and should be used wherever appropriate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument simply begs the question - the very matter at issue is whether the standard infobox is "appropriate"; and as others have noted above, MLS does have characteristics that aren't shared by the larger, international football community. JohnInDC (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also should mention that if anyone is unhappy that certain parameters are not present in {{Infobox Football club}}, then the thing to do is to argue for their inclusion on the template's talk page, rather than create a whole new infobox. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The MLS teams should use the same info box as everybody else... The teams aren't special in anyway. And as ppl have said WP:IBX Chandler ♠ TALK 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that the current box Soccer box doesn't have all the fields the MLS boxes do and doesn't feature an American English option. Code those in, THEN make the change. Until then the MLS box is needed if for the American English if nothing else. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me which items need translating into American English? I can't see any at the minute. – PeeJay 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The word "colour" needs to be "color". Also an option for "Ground" to be made "Stadium" needs to be made since there are no grounds in the US. Also additions for "First Game", "Owner", "Supporter's Groups", and the three major awards categories would need to be added. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the need to change "Ground" to "Stadium". Variations in the spelling of "colour" can be dealt with by using a simple boolean parameter (american = yes/no, for example). Owner can be implemented by using the chrtitle parameter to change the displayed title of that parameter in the infobox, as I have done for Seattle Sounders FC. As for First game and Supporters groups parameters, why on earth are they necessary for an infobox? Infoboxes should only contain vital information about the club, and neither of those fall in that category. – PeeJay 00:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporters groups are a unique and interesting property of MLS in the US which is why they should be included. No other sports league has sanctioned supporters groups like this. As for first game I suppose it could be moved to the article, but it should be retained in some way as MLS does have definitive first games that are important information for each team. As for those other parameters if you'd like to add them feel free but please do so before adding the football infobox to the American soccer teams. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how to make the changes, but I agree 100% with everything User:PeeJay2K3 says. Consistency and some compromise between the two different infobox styles is the best way to go about this. Peanut4 (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're taking suggestions for changes. I'd concede first game from the box, but would request an option to put in "division" since the MLS teams are in two seperate divisions "east" or "west". Yet another MLS oddity that while odd is very basic infobox material such as the MLB or NFL infoboxes have. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There isnt even a conference section on the MLS info box right now... Chandler ♠ TALK 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could probably | league = Major League Soccer<br />Western Conference it otherwise Chandler ♠ TALK 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any attempts to ignore soccer in the United States' unique strattling of two sporting traditions (the conventions of both North American major sports leagues and International soccer leagues) should be seen and dealt with as anti-American bias. Soccer in America is unique. American English has its own variations that are not shared by the rest of the English speaking world, and they should be respected. Unilateral action to change more than a dozen articles to remove valid content irregardless of these conventions is vandalism. Please refrain from acting in a similar fashion without first building consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than the kit pictures, which have their own legal issues, there is no pressing need to remove valid content from these articles, and the unilateral actions of one editor to circumvent the conventions of an entire series of articles without consensus to do so is highly untoward, disruptive, and disrespectful to the process of WP. This is a collaborative project, PeeJay, please remember that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing underscores that there are two issues here, both of which need to be addressed in discussions here. One is the form of the infobox and whether the current "standard" is wholly (or at least sufficiently) suitable for MLS; the other is ensuring that information that has heretofore existed in most or all of the MLS infoboxes is retained and suitably presented within the articles, should consensus be that such information is not suitable for infoboxes. As I consider this, I realize that I don't care about the willy-nilly "standardization" of the infoboxes as much as I do about the rather cavalier way in which that additional information was discarded in the process. JohnInDC (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. I think the way in which a small group took it upon themselves to wholly bypass the process by which we've built WP into the great thing that it is, and then condescendingly leave a note after they had done so as though it was an afterthought should be condemned, and the perpetrators warned. I don't have any particular attatchment to the inclusion of the "first game" played by MLS teams in the infobox, and the issues with kit pictures is a seperate legal issue entirely, but the whole way this was done is really shocking. The people responsible should really review some WP policy. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

More and more, I'm starting to think MLS and all related pages (while we're at it, all of American soccer) should break from WikiProject Football. There are just too many distinctions and too many differences to try to conform under an umbrella policy that Europhiles and Anglophiles are hell-bent on unconditionally imposing on this part of WP without their even trying to build consensus among American editors. I'm just tired of all the condescension and patronizing from the European wing of this community, and we should just figure out a way to make a clean break.

If you don't want or welcome our input, that's fine. I'd be happy to take the time to start looking for consensus to form a new WikiProject (not the task force from which I haven't heard hide nor hair in any of these disputes) and we can take our business elsewhere. Just say the word. Either way, these petty, nitpicky, downright selfish disputes have got to stop, because I have lost all patience with European editors who are anything but productive when it comes to American soccer and who have taken their prejudices and narrow-minded thinking onto Wikipedia. It is a complete shame. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's worth discussing. Indeed I am immediately reminded of another kind of clumsy application of WikiProject Football standards to MLS, about - I don't know - three months ago when the "changes from last season" sections of a few MLS pages were summarily removed, as not in keeping with project standards. I kind of miss the information that was there; it was handy, generally well maintained (at least on the DC United pages), and there's no other place to put it. (It's not like anyone is going to the trouble of making year-by-year recap pages for the various MLS teams!) JohnInDC (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay's and Peanut's suggestion that we attempt to add extra parameters to the existing infobox to allow for an American English display. This has worked well for the 'birth date and age' and 'height' templates, and there is no reason it shouldn't be possible here. I'm a US-based, MLS-supporting WP editor but I concur that having multiple templates which accomplish the same objective is confusing and unnecessary. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On a completely similar and equally absurd request, could someone please help with deprecating Template:Infobox japan station under Template:Infobox Station? I mean, for consistency's sake, since that is ostensibly the concern among editors here. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny man.. take it with WP:TWP instead. chandler 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this above, but it seems to have been ignored/overlooked: If anyone is unhappy that certain parameters are not present in {{Infobox Football club}}, then the thing to do is to argue for their inclusion on the template's talk page, not create a whole new infobox. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I see no problem in adding all the optional parameters requested, including first game and supporters group, to the main infobox, and an american=yes flag or something similar. Other articles can simply ignore those. John Hayes^talk 07:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't wish to sound patronising, Anglophilic or otherwise, simply WP-centric, but let's add the new parameters in. Can a template wizard create a temporary version which will suit both our MLS chums and us old schoolers? Since we can add as many optional parameters as required, it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at {{Infobox Football club2}}. You can see its output at User:Number 57/Toronto FC. The only thing I can't work out how to do is the Ground/Stadium thing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If standardization was of utmost importance, then long ago WP would have decided on American or Commonwealth English as a standard language. As we have not yet done so and both dialects are accepted on WP, a corollary to that is that regional variations in style are acceptable in other aspects of the encyclopedia. As this is such, I see no need to conform the MLS team infoboxes with any other infobox's standards, due to the unique nature of the MLS as both a Major North American sports league and a soccer league, both of which have their own unique conventions and traditions both on and off of WP. Legal issues pertaining to the kit images should be resolved ASAP, as there is no wiggle room on that subject (and truth be told most of them are outdated), but the rest of the content is within the conventions of both camps, both of which MLS has a foot in. I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is highly unnecessary. It is unfortunate that this matter and other issues have been handled in such a condescending, paternalistic manner, as it has likely prevented any sort of consensus or compromise from developing, and I think I agree with Roehl that there needs to be seperation into a new American Soccer project. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The MLS is not as unique as some people seem to think. Half of Latin America has a different league format to Europe, whilst the Australian and New Zealand leagues are formed by franchises, yet I don't recall any complaints from people editing those particular articles.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on the new infobox? пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that people don't seem to be as condescending with people around the Commonwealth as they are with Americans when it comes to football. Secondly, soccer is a much more minority game in Australia/New Zealand than it is even in the US, where it is the most common youth game, despite the lowly status of MLS. Australia/New Zealand are firmly part of the Commonwealth sporting culture with Rugby and Cricket taking the cake in those countries. Third, there is no other major sporting tradition in Latin America (besides baseball in the Caribbean, which is a different cultural block entirely) that even compares to the MLB/NBA/NFL/NASCAR/NHL/NCAA sports culture of North America. MLS is a part of both, and each group has its own quirks. There is simply no answer to the question of why consistency is something we absolutely must be seeking above all else. You've created a false crisis. Answer why consistency is of pressing concern, first, then work from there. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I already answered this above - from WP:IBX, the point of infoboxes is that "similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format". Can we move on now? :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I say a couple of things? I don't really see the need for two distinct infoboxes. Someone argued about the differences between American and British English, but this is simply not a issue. Just compare the field labels, and you'll easily realize there's only a couple of significant differences, that is "ground" vs "venue" and "coach" vs "manager", with the latter potentially being set up explicitly using the "mgrtitle" field. In case someone can provide more significant language differences, we can instead discuss to use a boolean "use_american" field. People arguing MLS is unique probably forgets it's just football. Or soccer, whatever you prefer, but the game and the rules are quite the same. --Angelo (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what makes MLS unique in the slightest. Every single league in the world has its own traditions. A couple of nomenclature differences is really all that's at stake here, everything else can be easily catered for in optional parameters, as Number 57 has demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to you support in changing the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A articles to use Template:Infobox Sports league. I mean after all they're all sports leagues, why shouldn't we hold consistency above all else in those cases as well? When I have your support on that measure I will gladly support yours. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you just seem to be stalling to avoid reaching an agreement. Those templates are not the issue here and you can bring them up below or later if you want to change them (to answer your demand for support, I have no problem with standardising the templates you mention). Please make a contribution regarding the new infobox. Thanks, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you'd want to take the Premier league, La Liga and Serie A of infobox football leauge, MLS should really go of its own (almost identical) infobox (Infobox major league soccer) chandler 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea.. I don't see why the MLS would be unique in any way... And seriously (trying to sound as little patronising as possible) its not the most notable league in the world, so why should it get "its own rules" here? chandler 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS springs to mind. We can't solve all of WP's inconsistencies in one go, let's just focus on this one shall we? And let's be clear, the football infobox is very specifically about football (or soccer if you will). The sports league infobox has a very much broader scope. You're comparing apples and oranges. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists relates only to AfD. No, everything must be consistent. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the fact that just because something's broken elsewhere, it doesn't affect the current argument. I see you've started making your point. At least resize the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, this discussion is about one template, not all footy-related infoboxes. Can we get back on track and stick to {{Infobox Football club2}} please? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry did losing specific pieces of relevant information, or changing key terms in the article to a foreign dialect upset some people? Sorry I didn't try to build consensus before making the change. I sure am inconsiderate. QED -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've made your point. Now we have a prototype infobox that includes all the information in the MLS one. Can we move on and be productive now please? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone for (finally) trying to understand this from our point of view. Sorry for breaking WP:POINT, but it was only for a few mins, and I think it really helped me make my point. If the MLS info (first game, etc.) is moved under the kit template like it was in the original, I would give preliminary support for such a change, pending further review and input from other American contributors. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done - how is it now? пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To make it a bit more "universal", couldn't we change the variables for MLS Cup and Supporters' Shield to something like "league_title" and "cup", with the option to set the titles to something appropriate for the country in question.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just have to point out before it gets "accepted" that the | MLScup = None | supportersshield = None really should be changed to something that would shot "how many domestic cup wins" "name of domestic cup" and "how many domestic league wins" "name of domestic league", and maybe be able to change which comes first, and have maybe at least the alternative of "domestic leage1/2" and "domestic cup1/2"... If that was implemented, it could also be used by non-MLS teams chandler 09:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea, but MLS cup is not the "league cup" of MLS, it is in fact the MLS championship proper

I know that, but this is to make it universally usable, that's why i didnt call it the league cup, but the domestic cup. chandler 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A few changes. 1) manager seems to be the term MLS is moving toward, so that doesn't need its own American term, where stadium really needs to be available instead of ground. 2) make sure that when you add the largest win/defeat you use the home-away format, as we've been trying to build (I can't believe I'm saying this) consistency on this in the American Soccer articles 3) add a section for domestic cups and another for international honors. Other than that I see no reason not to support. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the variables could be something generic like "honour1" and "honour2", with the option to set the titles to whatever you choose (eg "honour1title=MLS Cup".......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made the trophy changes - now you can input |trophy1name = and |trophy1 = . I've only added 2 so far, but it could be extended. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, well done. -- Grant.Alpaugh 09:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also done the stadium/ground thing: User:Number 57/Toronto FC. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a doc to that page (I think I got all things) chandler 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Add a section for international honors because in MLS we have the SuperLiga, CONCACAF Champions' Cup (soon to be Champions League), and Copa Sudamericana. Whereas other places have regional/international competitions. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the problem with using Toronto as the example is that Canada doesn't have a notable "FA Cup" where the US has the US Open Cup that Toronto aren't allowed into. -- Grant.Alpaugh 10:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't that be done under |trophy3, |trophy4 etc? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at User:Number 57/DC United. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Or see User:Number 57/DC United2 for a second format which doesn't use up quite so much room. Which one is preferable? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed another issue: we typically show what the finish was last season, and in MLS this can be confusing. I think we need to be able to put finish in the regular season, the playoffs, or both. If we can do that then that's fine.

I think whatever version of the box that doesn't bunch things up into 2 rows unless absolutely necessary, should be used. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can put whatever you want under the |position parameter. I've had a go at combining regular season and playoffs here. I'd also prefer this version for the honours list, if indeed it is required. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing I don't like about that honours thing is when clubs become more successful it will mess it up chandler 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note, why does the Premier League have its own template for its season articles? -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know... looks like it is 2 years old... If {{Infobox Football league season}} does have the required parameters, I don't see any reason for not using it. chandler 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed now a rather big inconsistency there, one season used {{Infobox sports season}} some season doesnt have a infobox... I think all should be made to either {{Infobox Football league season}} or {{Infobox sports season}} chandler 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to ster up more emotions, but about MLS using {{Infobox major league soccer}}, here in my sandbox I drew up how it would look with the "normal" {{Infobox football league}}. The only two differences are, Most title and SS winner disapears. Now I motivate this how? I read SS was like the the thing they game out in the NHL, and on the NHL article under most recent champion, it doesnt mention it (in the infobox). Most titles disapears I motivate by saying, I havn't found any other league article with has it (though there probably is).. Now most titles is something that really could be usefull on the football league infobox imo, but that would have to be discussed also. chandler 10:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New parameters

So, given the changes made in the prototype infobox, is there agreement to include the new parameters in {{Infobox Football club}} and to use it on MLS club pages? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it would have to be disscussed over at the Template talk first? chandler 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume not, as all the people commenting there are the same people as work here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small thing, could you list the new parameters etc... and, how many trophy are you including? (I'm thinking if European team articles would start using this, we'd have to count, for at least english teams, League, FA cup, League cup, Community shield (maybe not needed there), Champions League, Cup Winners Cup, UEFA Cup, UEFA Super Cup (maybe not needed there), hmm probably forgotten some one) chandler 10:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The new ones are: | venuetitle = | owner | firstgame = | largestwin = | worstdefeat = | topscorer = | fansgroup = | trophy1 = | trophy1name = | trophy2 = | trophy2name =

We don't have to use the trophy thing for European clubs, but it was something in the MLS template which editors seem keen on retaining. Perhaps it be easier to have Honours in the left hand column, and then list them in the right, e.g. User:Number 57/DC United2. Thoughts? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Only thing about that is, if euro clubs used it it would look something like this... well 100 rows :) Maybe something similar to the thing used for players club apearences and goals can be used? on the left hand you have Cup1<br>Cup2<br>Cup3<br>Cup4 and on the otherside How many times they've won it, instead of the years... The years should be under a Honours section, right? chandler 10:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, European clubs don't have to use it. Is it something which is really needed for MLS clubs? пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You could do like they've done on it:D.C. United for example, and yes ofc euro clubs dont have to use them.. but really, neither does the MLS clubs chandler 10:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, they don't have to use it, but this is how the Rangers might look Honours chandler 11:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think MLS needs it because the other North American teams list their championships in their infobox. Also, I really like the "goalscorer" idea. I don't think we need the years in the infobox (if more than a 1 or 2), just the number of titles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Found this someone has made (though for the NHL) User:Jeff3000/Sandbox1 The two at the bottom, I like that way of showing honours at least. chandler 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a larger issue, if each team can customize what they include and the terms they use, why do we have to use the same infobox? I mean what are we really doing here that's different from letting MLS use their own infobox? -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because even if different parameters are required, we should all be working from the same base. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? If they're all going to look slightly different, what difference does it make how they got that way? If I don't get a good answer to this, I'm withdrawing my support for the switch. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you your view here, If they look slightly different, but it's easy to confide it in one template, why would you need to make other template? The differences wont be other that some parameters not being filled chandler 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, they will look the same beacuse the shape, style and order will remain the same - even if there are a few extra rows, I don't see how it is much different. Not all articles using {{Infobox Football club}}, or indeed any other major designated template (such as {{Infobox Officeholder}} have all the parameters filled in.

Plus the part of WP:IBX I quoted above remains the same. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the benefit? Is there something wrong with the way the current infobox is set up? -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that we shouldn't have two separate infoboxes to do the same thing. The benefit is that if there is a consensus that the way something is presented needs to change, then only one edit is required. If we end up for different infoboxes for each league (some people might come along and argue that if MLS clubs have a separate template, then so should Serie A clubs), then it would be a nightmare. I don't understand how there can be opposition to a superficial change (such as the one proposed here) that leaves the MLS articles looking pretty much exactly the same, but get rid of template duplication in line with policy.

So my question remains, why should the Soccer Leagues have different infobox templates than other professional sports? -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Biggest and most popular sport in the world is one factor chandler 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: Why shouldn't the Premier League article use the template I change it to before? Just for argument's sake answer that question. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Premier League should use the standard infobox, but it may need the addition of parameters (e.g. confederation) in order for it to display the same information. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we have a template specially for football clubs, used by all football clubs (except that one league who wants to be different) chandler 12:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that its is the best template to convey the information required in that article, the same answer applies for the MLS teams. The current template allows for the easiest display of information, I don't see any reason to change them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the new template includes all the information, why not use it if unlike the existing one it (a) conforms to policy, and (b) keeps everyone on the project happy? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found a solution! Let's have every article use the same template and we can include every perameter so that everything is consistent. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I that's why this talk section was started... To get MLS to use the normal one... ← chandler 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like there are multiple templates that could be used on the Premier League article, there are multiple templates that could work on the MLS articles. We should use the infobox that works best for both, and leave it at that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But the question then still remains, "I mean {{Infobox football club}} is good enough for everyone else, so why is the MLS different?" There's really no reason why it wouldn't work. chandler 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that more important than whether soccer leagues should use different infoboxes than other sports? Why is this the exception? Is it because each sport has different needs, and because MLS falls into two categegories why shouldn't we choose a third way? -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why MLS should be treated specially... Its absolutely not one of the most notable leagues in the world. ← chandler 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ofc it has... If ppl from all minor football leagues started coming here and wanting own templates for the Croatia, Cyprus, Sweden, Slovenia, Bosnia leagues etc... We would not allow it. I'm not sure ppl would allow one of the big tree leagues having own... So why should this league have its way and override (what ive read from this whole discussion) what most ppl think is wrong ← chandler 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to turn that around - suppose the Swedish football editors had a template in place, containing all sort of information not found in the standard template, and then one day someone for the sake of "uniformity" swept in and edited all the Swedish league pages to conform to the basic template, removing all of that extra information in the process. How would you expect the Swedes to react? I think this discussion is warranted, and healthy. I *also* think - again - that whatever the outcome, editors take care to preserve, in some responsible fashion, whatever non-standard information now contained in the MLS template. JohnInDC (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As a Swede, I would welcome it... And if you look at the history of Allsvenskan you'll see that the latest edits is me screwing some other template in favor for the standard one. :O ← chandler 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly something to be said for uniformity. There is also something to be said for examining the various things that, for one reason or another, MLS editors wound up including in their alternative infobox, and considering the reasons they might have done so - rather than simply chalking it up to cussedness or idiosyncrasy. And, please, try to work *with* the MLS editors to find a solution rather than simply imposing one upon them. (MLS fans really do get it from both ends - from 'major sports' fans in the US who disparage the sport they love as too Euro, too girly, or whatever; and from fans of more established leagues elsewhere who disparage MLS as a second rate sports backwater - no *wonder* they / we have thin skins sometimes.) And finally, again, whatever the final resolution, let's be careful not to simply sweep away non-conforming infobox material like so much dust. JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, we seem to be drifting off into circular arguments again here. Anyway, as I said before, given that it

1. includes all the information required by editors working on MLS articles
2. gets rid of duplication, and
3. has the advantage of adhereing to WP:IBX,

what are the objections to the newly modified infobox beyond a general resistance to change? пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fashionably late to the discussion, I prefer the use of one infobox with fields that fit everyone. You could even go to the extent of adding MLS=yes as a variable which will then use if statements to alter the display (ie. if MLS=yes then show 'stadium' instead of 'ground' etc etc). As long as it has all the fields and the old infobox can be redirected without buggering too much up then go for it. Keeping everything similar and to a MOS is better in the long run, especially for WP1.0 and FA/PR etc, as we can instantly see if something needs work. Once eveything's sorted, just redirect the MLS one to the footy one and then think about giving the infobox a better name so people aren't confused by which sport it's for. Oh and the new one looks fine to me. 90.240.211.189 (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to change the name of the template(s), all other sports have templates named differently anyway. {{Infobox australian football club}} {{AFL team}} {{NFL team}} {{Rugby team}} {{Infobox rugby league club}} ← chandler 12:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as all the information currently available in both the MLS and generic infobox is available in the new infobox, then I support the change to the new infobox. I think we should move to a consensus on how to include honors (if at all) on the infobox. I think every team should try to include the information available in the MLS infobox like first game, etc., but I understand that for the oldest teams those pieces of information are long since lost to history. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the big significance of 'first game'?--ClubOranje^Talk 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

True those sports all have different infoboxes, but they're also completely different sports. Soccer tends to be soccer world wide. Gateman1997 (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, football tends to be football world wide... football tends to be soccer in upper north america ← chandler 14:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Lends support to the argument that North American soccer should have a separate infobox as it's a different sport ;) Gateman1997 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Soccer is a very common term in Australia and New Zealand. Whatever the most common form of football in a country is will be called simply football. American/Canadian football in the US and Canada and Rugby/Aussie Rules in New Zealand and Australia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand officially calls it Football, and has in recent times gone to lengths to 'convert' the public in line with international conventions.--ClubOranje^Talk 02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the NZ association now calls itself a 'football' association instead of soccer, and in a similar way Soccer Australia has changed its name to football. But the point is the common usage of 'soccer' in Aus/NZ English. Some other countries often use soccer, frequently despite the association officially calling the sport football, e.g. South Africa (rugby union-playing) and Ireland (Gaelic football). Football is definitely the most common term for the game if you take all countries with English as one of their official languages, but the point is that North America is not the only place where 'soccer' is in widespread use Tameamseo (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Page break

All I think we need to look at what User:Number 57 is doing with his modifications to the standard Footy template. If those are implemented everyone wins. The MLS users will have American English, and the additional information from the current MLS template maintained, while everyone will be unified under a single template. Everyone wins. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except us haters who think MLS should fall in line :<< *note half joking* ;) ← chandler 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we have consensus for change. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm what style for the honours should be though? I like User:Number_57/DC_United better than User:Number_57/DC_United2... Though the thing to consider is if the years are appropriate, because the list can get pretty long in some years for some teams (and could be pretty long right know with Euro teams) ← chandler 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick poll

Yes, I know !voting is evil, but which is the best way of displaying honours:

1. User:Number 57/DC United
2. User:Number 57/DC United2
3. Honours don't need to be displayed

• 3, but if the consensus is yes, then 2 as it avoids having to put long titles in the left hand column (which results in either having to split them over two lines, or having very wide infoboxes (try not splitting CONCACAF Champions Cup over two lines, and the infobox is half the page width)). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 1, I would use it like I played with it here User:Xhandler/Sandbox/LFC_IB (to not split long titles like CONCACAF Champions Cup, just Champions Cup it.) ← chandler 08:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That box for Rangers looks like it would take up half the article..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know its long... But I just don't like 2 at all. And the NHL articles uses a similar (to 1) "honours" showing in their infoboxes Montreal Canadiens ← chandler 09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In ice hockey, though, there's only three potential honours a team can win, but if we went down that road for football I can envisage people trying to include stuff like this or even this, which would make the infobox longer than the article!!!! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd obviously have to set up rules, for example only the top league, the national cup (2 for those who have), and the 3 big UEFA tournaments for UEFA teams ← chandler 10:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

have a look in my sandbox at your Rangers infobox, with the start of the Rangers F.C. article present as well. I've added in a placeholder picture where the logo would be to make it realistic. Even with an immensely long table of contents such as the Rangers article has, the infobox goes down way into the history section. It unbalances the whole thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3, but 2 if consensus demands that honours be presented. To be honest, I don't see the need for listing a club's honours in the infobox. As shown by the examples in chandler's sandbox, they take up almost as much space as the rest of the infobox (hyperbole), and in a lot of article's I've seen, they are often listed in the lead, as well as in a separate section further down the article. – PeeJay 09:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 3 per WP:IBX#General advice. I don't really think honours are relevant enough to stay in an infobox, they can be a potentially huge list which is better being featured in a separate section, as suggested by the Football (soccer) clubs MoS. --Angelo (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a mix of 1 and 2? With the tournament name on the left and "x titles" on the right side? ← chandler 10:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• honors and years, but the way struway2 has it works best. I really don't think people are going to start putting youth titles up, if they even begin putting honors up at all. Also, runner-up should not, strictly speaking, be considered an "honor." -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 3 - I think it can appear just as easily in the body of the article. I prefer that an infobox contain relatively static information, like founding date and stadium. If not static then I think the items should be ones that will not expand over time. So, I llike the biggest win / worst loss in these infoboxes (they will always be just a single entry), leading scorer (likewise); and supporter's group(s); but honors etc. can make the box unwieldly, and are easily put elsewhere. JohnInDC (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a version (I forget which option) that has the name of the cup/championship and then the number of times won with a link to the honors section of the article, to let people know what years they were won if they want to know. That way the box stays a relatively static size, but has just as much useful information. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the section needs to remain intact, largely because we agree that everything in the MLS infoboxes has to stay in the new footy infobox, so "3" isn't even a valid option. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone wants 3, than its not agreed that all those things have to stay. ← chandler 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I only support the change to the new infobox if the MLS infoboxes stay the same content wise (order and format is not as important). The only valid reason for putting the MLS teams on the standard infobox is so that we can quickly and uniformly address problems that develop. Removing content that is in keeping with MLS teams role as both football clubs and North American sports franchises, these honors need to remain viable options for MLS team articles, regardless of whether the rest of the world takes advantage of them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case then including '3' as an option may have been a mistake, because that option appears to be gaining at least a plurality! (As for me, I appreciate the opportunity to tweak the infobox to include things that seem to have gained popularity on the MLS pages; however, I regard the same as also an opportunity to figure out what really *should* go in the info box, and I think there's a good case to be made for assigning the potential clutter of honors etc. to the main body of the article.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something that people outside the US don't seem to understand, I'm afraid. My point all along is that WP:FOOTY has as much jurisdiction over MLS as a (yet uncreated, as far as I know) WP:North American Sports, because there is as much need for uniformity in those articles as there is on the football articles. Not acknowledging this is simply not an option, and I (and I assume other American editors) will oppose any such action to the fullest. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it might have been a bad idea to include option 3, but JohnInDC (an American editor) actually supports it. As I said above, I'm willing to include the honours (largely to stop you destroying any hope of solving this issue through a blanket refusal to compromise on any parameter), but in turn, you should also take note of the views of a significant number of others on what is the same sport worldwide. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3, per Angelo and per JohnInDC. IMO, honours should go in an Honours section in the article, or a sentence or two in the lead for anything really significant to the club. Though it's funny how differently people see things; I included the start of the Rangers article with Chandler's infobox as an illustration of how excessively over the top that approach would look applied to a real article, even when restricted to recognised major honours. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 2. While 1 is actually better for the MLS in particular I can see how 2 could be useful for almost any team worldwide. Just needs to have the American English for "Honors" and "Colors" added. Gateman1997 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• 3 - Infoboxes are already taking over wikipedia, some articles you can't even write a long enough lead to go beyond the thing, and heaven forbid getting an actual photo on the first view of the page. Scrap them all imo, not just football. But specifically, for clubs like Liverpool, this would be daft. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Every article doesn't have to use every parameter. A change including an option for an honors section doesn't mean every club's article instantly has this info in the infobox. Making it impossible for the MLS articles to include information that all the other North American sports franchises have, however, is unworkable, as it removes information that is in keeping with other relavent conventions on WP. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that most US sports have a pretty straightforward and (comparatively) unchanging list of honors and championships that *can* be won (division championship, league championship) - contrast MLS, and soccer generally, where they threaten to multiply like rabbits. In the same way that international conventions aren't appropriately applied in all cases to MLS, I fear that US conventions likewise aren't always appropriate either. (Again the opportunity here is to figure out what actually makes sense and do *that*, not argue about which convention is worse.) JohnInDC (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think it's far more important that DC United's infobox matches that of Cruz Azul than the Washington Redskins', because they'll never play the Redskins, and they have nothing in common beyond being from the same city; on the other hand, there's a good chance they'll one day play Cruz Azul in some continental tournament. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Why does everyone completely dismiss the fact that there is a unique sports culture in the US!? We have franchises, rather than clubs (though baseball started out that way), sponsorship of teams is much less commonplace, we have playoffs, etc. This independent tradition is part of why MLS has struggled to gain a foothold in the US, so its far from irrelevant to this discussion. Again, my point is that there is as good an argument for making MLS comply with WP:FOOTY's guidelines as there is for making the Premier League, La Liga, and Serie A comply with the Sport's League infobox, which I used to make my point earlier. As John pointed out, American Soccer fans get shit on by two different and powerful communities, so the more you work with us, the better you will do. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to completely dismiss the fact that all countries have unique sports cultures. And why the US should be treated differently has still not been explained. ← chandler 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

North America has the only sports culture that is markedly different from the one that developed out of the UK. Everyone else's is transplanted out of that one (through either the British Empire/Commonwealth) or the almost universal popularity of football. This unique culture is part of why MLS has struggled to get a foothold in the US. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3 I think it is unnecessary to include these in the infobox. It will use too much space (for successful clubs) and is not crucial information that needs to go in the infobox. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people are misinterpreting these changes as "Include a bunch of information in every club article" instead of what it is "Keep important information in a dozen or so MLS articles." Nobody is suggesting we make the Liverpool or Rangers infobox 3 pages long, instead we're suggesting we not summarily delete content from the MLS team articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Remember folks, these changes aren't meant to be used on most soccer infoboxes. They're primarily going to be restricted to MLS boxes only. Liverpool for instance wouldn't change from what's displayed there now. By making this change so too the MLS boxes wouldn't change. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between "info in MLS infoboxes that isn't even mentioned in Euro-football articles" (like "worst defeat") and "info in MLS infoboxes that most Euro-football articles get around to mentioning in the article text" (e.g., honors and trophies). Including the former in the infobox and making it optional for non-US clubs makes sense in the former case, where the information risks being lost from MLS pages if it's not in the infobox. In the latter case, making it optional in the infobox risks presenting it in one place on MLS pages and in other on non-US football pages, which strikes me as the least welcome outcome. JohnInDC (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in both places, first of all. The important thing is that we have to respect what the other American franchises do in addition to what soccer teams around the world do. Deleting information from the infobox that NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB teams put in their infoboxes would be ignoring this distinction. That would be the least welcome outcome. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any content be removed from the articles, just from the infobox. The infobox could in theory contain a summary of the entire article, but that is not its purpose. My view is that club honors are not crucial information that needs to appear there. Jogurney (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that it is crucial that it appear in the infobox to conform to the conventions for the other North American sports franchises. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 2 - I think it's a good idea to include honors in infoboxes for all clubs. It also doesn't appear that anyone's noticed that honors/honours is spelled differently in American and British English, that will need to be changeable in the template, just like other differences that have been pointed out (color/colour for example). - MTC (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I had noticed that, but trying (with User:PeeJay2K3) to get the colours thing fixed first. If anyone else knows how to, feel free to edit {{tl:Infobox Football club2}}. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    It is simple to do this, I have just made the edit to the template. It will change colours to colors if you add "American = true" ("true" can be replaced with any text, even false) to the template parameters. Here is an example using the DC United template from your subpage. - MTC (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Thanks for that - I've applied it to {{Infobox Football club3}} too (and used it as a simpler way of getting the stadium/ground thing), so the Hono(u)rs thing works too - see User:Number 57/DC United2. Counting from above, it looks like this is the preferred option (I could 2 votes for 1 and 5 for 2). пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Guys keep up the good work. It looks great. I'd be all for applying it now. We can debate content til our heads fall off, but implementing this would at the very least solve the base issue of getting all soccer teams/clubs under the same template. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I tend to get a little impatient, so I've made the change. Just done D.C. United. Can anyone else help out with the changes? пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
          • • I've applied it to all the teams in the Eastern Conference (except Toronto), but that's enough work for one night... пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Outstanding work. It looks spot on. Great compromise all around. Keeps what MLS writers want, and we're all unified under one box. Well done. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Help Can anyone work out why the modifications to the template are causing the large amount of whitespace to appear at the top of a few articles (e.g. User:Number 57/Bury Town F.C.). I can't work out why the optional parameters seem to be doing it... пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Hmmm. It seems to be caused by having more parameters below the pictures of the kit. As a quick fix I'll move them above it (so the articles won't look funny overnight, and it won't remove info from the MLS boxes I've already done), but if anyone can work out how to do it long term, please do. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • The problematic template is at {{Infobox Football club3}} and an example of its effect at User:Number 57/Bury Town F.C. in case anyone wants to have a go. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • Actually, is it even a problem in what order the parameters appear in the box? No other US sports actually display the kit, so does it matter that it's at the bottom? пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• It may. MLB lists their "kits" about mid box similar to where most soccer boxes have previously. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Damn - that was the only sport I forgot to check (I did look at NBA, NHL and NFL...). But then again, the baseball teams lists its nicknames, stadium, names etc below the kit, and the manager and coach at the end so there's a fair old mix anyway. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • True enough. I'm game to see what your change does. So far your changes have been spot on. I've already applied them to the San Jose Earthquakes article. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict: :::::I think from a North American perspective however what we also have to consider is that MLS should conform to a point with the other major North American sports leagues, like the MLB and NFL. Both of which list championships in their respective infoboxes. See that's the pickle. MLS as Grant points out does have alot more in common with the NFL or NBA as a league then it does the Premier League or La Liga. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3: No honours. No first game. No top goalscorer. All the information is incidental and isn't relevant enough to the backbone of the club. Peanut4 (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And every club outside the MLS will likely not include them. MLS teams, however, need to be able to comply with the conventions of both football clubs and North American sports franchises. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be plenty of non US editors that will positively sieze the chance of being able to include the worst defeat of a team in the infobox of a rival, be it in 1995 or 1905. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that that info is largely unknown for the world's oldest clubs. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that?? Most decent football annuals list that info for every pro club in England - see List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, but the point is the information doesn't have to be added if people don't wish it to be so. MLS articles should have it for the reasons I've mentioned like a dozen times before. -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If it can be added, by virtue of there being a parameter, then sure as dammit someone will eventually add it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacNee, in that I do believe that these parameters would be open to use/abuse by fans of non-American teams. However, I do not believe that we should remove a parameter just because someone might misuse it. That goes against everything Wiki stands for. – PeeJay 13:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. You could make the same argument about every article or section on WP. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In the documentation, I have listed them as MLS-specific parameters, so hopefully this will stop people using it for non-MLS teams (and gives a pretext for removing it where it has been). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• 1 For most teams this will be quite small, and even in the case of Rangers or Liverpool I don't see why it matters much if the infobox is quite long, the article is still longer. John Hayes^talk 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the template on the MLS teams... I was gonna try and update some teams infoboxes, but get stuck on the Season (Eastern Conference: 2nd, Overall: 4th, Playoffs: MLS Cup) is what New England has... But what are you forexample gonna set for Huston, who won the MLS Cup, if the second placers have "MLS Cup" as Playoffs. ← chandler 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And maybe , should be used instead of : after the competition to go with the rest of the clubs around the world ← chandler 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and forgot, if the MLS is considered the most important (in between Conference placing and Overall placing after the league, shouldn't it be at the top?) ← chandler 18:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I made those changes, I was going to put MLS Cup Winners for Houston. I did it in that order, conference, overall, playoffs, because that's the order they happen in. First conference order determines if you get an automatic spot (since 07 at least) then overall determines wild card, then playoffs happens after that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I though think second place should be under "Runner up" ← chandler 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated Houston now, don't think i missed anything ← chandler 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That opens another "can of worms" regarding honours themselves. Can you count runners-up as an honour? You see plenty of player articles, having runners-up, promotion, play-offs wins as honours. I'd simply go for actual titles themselves as an honour. Though I admit runners-up in cup finals normally comes with a medal for the players. Peanut4 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, no, we're talking about the "last season" section in the infobox. Specifically because MLS uses a playoff system to determine its champion. I think we're pretty much agreed that only actual wins will count as honors for the infobox's purposes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutly nothing more than Wins in the infobox, in a honours section runner up is suitable imo. ← chandler 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, use the : rather than the , in the last season section, unless you are going to fix all the one's I did last night. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just that , is used on all other clubs (who write out for example, La Liga, 2nd) ← chandler 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, so if you want to use the comma you can change them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian Mawhinney

I have asked for protection at WP:RPP for the Brian Mawhinney, Chairman of The Football League, article as it has been heavily vandalised today[1] by (presumably) Leed United supporters. The main concerns are abusive comments, some libellous comments and the addition of some text about being depised by Leeds supporters, which is irrelevant to Brian Mawhinney's notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now semi-protected until 12:00, 1 May 2008. I would be grateful if someone would review the text about "Mawhinney is deeply unpopular with fans of Leeds United..." for relevancy to Mawhinney's notability, which ranges far more widely than being chairman of the Football League, undue weight (or not) and whether the source is reliable or not, and take what action they think appropriate. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it completely. It was sourced to a forum, which is far from a WP:RS, and one which you had to log onto anyway, which doesn't meet WP:EL. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd removed it or similar a few times but the editor posted a note on my talk tonight saying it should stand and I thought best for someone uninvolved to have a look at this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup Notability

If a player has played in the first few rounds of the FA Cup, does it make them notable, in the same way playing in the premiership does? Eddie6705 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's for a fully professional club, I don't see why not. In this case, I would ask myself "if this was a league match, would the player be notable?" If the answer is yes, then the same applies for the cup. – PeeJay 00:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism

Am i right in thinking that the edits of this user 84.71.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are nothing more than subtle vandalism. I think they are, but can't be sure--Jac16888 (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to assume good faith. Looks to me like the editor is trying to improve the articles, but has little understanding of how footballer articles are constructed in terms of wiki markup, template usage etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Struway2, seems like honest attempt. Checked a few of the stats against official sources, can't fault them. Just the one edit inappropriate, but seems to have got a hand slap for it and been OK since. (BTW, wich users posting vandalism warnings would add the page parameter so we can know which edit they are being admonished for.--ClubOranje^(Talk) 10:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox Football club season}}

There's a field in this template called "Manager", but it displays as "First team coach" - could someone have a look at this........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added mgrtitle and chrtitle parameters similar to the {{Infobox Football club}} template in order to allow different job titles to be entered. – PeeJay 08:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Club season articles - cut-off level....?

Did we ever decide on what level clubs are permitted to have Footown F.C. season 200xx-xx type articles? I've got one for a non-league club which I'd like to work on and am 100% confident I can make as good as Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07 (a GA), but I'll nip it in the bud if it would only wind up getting AfD'ed........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think these articles should be admitted only for clubs who play in a fully professional league, and whose content can be reasonably (and somewhat easily) verified and sourced. --Angelo (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All the content in the one I plan to work on can be reasonably verified and sourced, even though they don't play in a fully pro league...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For a non-professional non-league club I would question how notable the season may be. Havant&Waterlooville have arguably had a notable season, but I'd prefer to see that included in their main article page.(not Belmont is it?)--ClubOranje^Talk 10:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll knock it on the head then........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Transfer window

Does the summer transfer window only apply to players, or does it apply to managers as well? I'm busy drafting a list of Dutch football transfers in the summer of 2008‎ in my userspace, and I'm not sure whether or not to include managers (Van Basten to Ajax, Verbeek to Feyenoord, Stevens to PSV). Aecis^Brievenbus 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to players, managers can move clubs whenever they want (as long as the new team can afford compensation etc.), but you could still mention the manager's moves in the article. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An ample demonstration. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Derek Acorah

Aparently the TV psychic had a professional football career with Liverpool, Wrexham, Glentoran and in Australia...anyone know if he made a first-team league appearance for any of those teams, years at said clubs etc.? I smell an infobox...GiantSnowman (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No record of anyone called Derek Johnson (his real name) having ever played for the first team of Liverpool or Wrexham. Can't speak for Glentoran or any other non-English team though...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've amended the article - the references used did not back up some of the claims made, and I've added {{cn}} to a few others. Qwghlm (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I ruled out tv.com as RS and therefore removed the whole section per WP:BLP --Dweller (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Change football navboxes to full width?

I've started a discussion at Template talk:National squad on changing the widths of navbox templates {{Football squad}}, {{National squad}}, and {{Football manager history}} to be 100% from the current 80%. I'd appreciate comments and discussion there. Thanks, --CapitalR (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this? It would bring us into line with the rest of Wikipedia pretty much. I have never quite understood why they weren't full length in the first place. Example below Woody (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Aston Villa F.C. squad}} or {{User:Woody/Aston Villa Sandbox}}

I really don't mind 80% or 100% so you can have my "vote" for 100% ← chandler 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They have all been moved to 100%. Woody (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am against this. We had a template that worked on both on a technical and aesthetic level, I would have the box returned to 80% width, the agreed standard within the community.Londo06 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:FL-Class football articles

I notice that the category Category:FL-Class football articles is empty, even though we have several featured lists. Should these be re-rated as FL rather than FA? --Jameboy (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The cat is empty as the assessment wasn't supported when it was created so to record them FL's were placed in FA-Class football articles so WP1.0bot would count them. If FL-class is now supported, then a simple change to {{football}} will populate the category. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we know if it is supported or not? --Jameboy (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, pretty quiet here, so I'll change the featured lists to FL, and if it doesn't work the next time the bot runs, I'll happily change them back. --Jameboy (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Having changed a few, I can see what you mean now - even when rated as FL it is classed as FA. I'll submit a request to get the Football template changed. --Jameboy (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All footy featured lists now rated as FL (though still classed as FA for categorisation, apparently due to the bot not yet making the distinction). Unfortunately I think I broke some of the templates of other projects, as on closer inspection these are showing as "unassessed", implying that FL is not even partially supported by their project. I will go back and fix these individually. --Jameboy (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone But United

A total mess of a POV essay currently stands at Anyone But United. I was going to nominate for deletion (prod had been contested) but before I do I was wondering if anybody felt it might be worth their while trying to salvage it? Qwghlm (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject is probably notable enough for an article, but the state of the article at the moment is truly laughable. Unfortunately, I can't possibly devote the amount of time it would take to revamp the article. Anyone else care to step up to the plate? – PeeJay 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the point of it myself. Belongs on someones blog page.--ClubOranje^Talk 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the tone of the article, I want to have a big laugh. Oh my goodness. It seems to be an article about opinions! But that's right. This article is notable enough. Raymond Giggs 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It may well have a place on here, because it does have some notoriety. But anyone would be perfectly able to remove any POV from the article. And I bet you're not left with much afterwards. Peanut4 (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion I know but....I'm not even sure this ABU stuff even exists anymore. It might have had some basis in fact in the days of Roy Keane, Steve Bruce and Gary Pallister snarling at referees but now alot I think of fans have an unspoken admiration for Man United in their style and ability to entertain (which, lest we forget, should be one of the aims of football). Even the newspaper ref quoted is 4 years old and from a reporters blog!

If it this article (which reads more like a rant) belongs anywhere then perhaps as an example of Envy(Envy in Sport?) or Jealousy?--Egghead06 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(Going off topic) I wouldn't say envy or jealousy is necessarily right - I can't stand Man Utd, but not because of their success, but because they led the way in the rampant commercialisation of the game and its subsequent damage. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) it's a word-for-word copy of the first half of this from BBC h2g2, dating from 2000. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, well that settles it. Deleted under CSD G12; anyone recreating please do so with an original, neutral and verifiable work. Qwghlm (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike SSerumaga

If you look into the page histories of Mike SSerumaga and Mike Sserumaga, you will find a lot of very similar edits: IPs copypasting the content from one article to the article, and turning one article into a redirect to the other. This violates GFDL, since it makes it very hard to establish who wrote what; for that reason, any move should be done with the move tab. To prevent this from continuing, we need some clarity on the name of this player: is it Mike SSerumaga or Mike Sserumaga? Aecis^Brievenbus 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the latter according to Google and that's what I'd expect to be honest. And according to his team too. Peanut4 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarumio once more

Okay, I'm tired of this now. Despite a debate which User:MickMacNee instigated at Template talk:Infobox Football club, Sarumio last night made around 25 edits in his usual style, simply removing FC/AFC without no justification or consensus. This is the fourth time I've brought this to the attention of the project and it appears I'm right back at square one. I can't do this any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway we can get him permanently banned for repeated disruptive edits? GiantSnowman (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful if one or fifty people added to this request [2], they seem to be ignoring it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that anyone who has been involved in the debate should desist from adding or removing FC from the infobox. The issue is trivial, but people who keep making these edits in full awareness of the fact that the issue is currently under discussion are clearly editing in a disruptive manner. I would support blocks on anyone adding or removing FC (without talkpage consensus) before consensus is eventually reached on the FC or no FC issue. I would also suggest that asking an admin like Alexf or Angelo to close the case might be an idea, as most admins wont have a clue what the hell everyone is going on about and would baulk at the amount of debate on the subject, so politely inviting a particular admin who is familiar with the football infobox might get things moving along a bit quicker English peasant 18:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Belay that suggestion, it's dropped into the archives without a single reply. MickMacNee (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube links

Why is it that YouTube is frowned upon as a reference? Just enquiring as Albert Streit has had it listed previously - just want to know why incase anybody reverts it...Jimbo^[online] 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because links on YouTube tend to fall under two categories, copyright violations and primary sources. Wikipedia is prohibited from linking to copyright violations because of a US District Court ruling (see WP:COPY#Linking to copyrighted material for more info) and discourages people from relying upon primary sources solely for sourcing (see WP:PRIMARY for more info). --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Smith (Manager)

I don't agree with this page move, as it doesn't seem to fit in with the conventions of Wikipedia and WP:FOOTY. Am I right in thinking that the article should have remained as Jim Smith (footballer) for the reasons I mentioned on the article's talk page? I don't want to move it back without being clear on the reasons why. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd back it to be moved back, he isn't even a manager these days...Jimbo^[online] 11:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

He was better known as a manager. Why change it to footballer when he stopped playing years ago? Just do whatever you feel is best. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Manager is too generic, though - it should be football manager. But I'd agree with 'footballer' to remain consistent. •Oranje•·Talk 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Who are we to say he is better known as a manager? Perhaps to us younger people, he might be better known as a manager, but to older football fans, they may remember him best as a player. It's all subjective, so in the interests of NPOV, "footballer" would be the most appropriate disambiguator. – PeeJay 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Trafford

Hey guys. I've just nominated the Old Trafford article for GA status. Anyone who hasn't significantly contributed to it, could you please give it a review? Cheers. – PeeJay 14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the nomination page? Raymond Giggs 07:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans Hoffner

I wonder if this article is a hoax. Informations in infobox looks untrue and I found nothing on him on the internet...Any opinion?--Latouffedisco (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it - the French and German articles don't exist and the external links are for Erich Maas. I'd slap a prod on it if I were you. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And the guy's other contribution is to make a copy of Amazon Kingfisher under the name Hermoso Flieger (which I've just deleted as a test page). Bizarre. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would reckon it was just a copy of Erich Maas with a made-up name added. Maas' details look remarkably similar!--Egghead06 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed this article was based on Erich Maas' article, this is strange. Thanks for the PROD, by the way.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

SPFA or PFA Scotland?

I notice that what the media calls PFA Scotland awards are shown as SPFA awards on wikipedia. I presume this must be the case because the organisation used to be called SPFA but have changed to PFA Scotland and this has gone unnoticed. User:Hamiltonvalcea though seems to have decided that the two are completely separate organisations, so instead of just adding the 2007–08 manager of the year to this article; SPFA Manager of the Year‎ they have created; PFA Scotland Manager of the Year‎, I think it is essentially the same award, just renamed. Darryl.matheson (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From this news story: "Fraser Wishart is spearheading the establishment of a new footballers' union in Scotland which it is hoped will revolutionise key aspects of the professional game north of the border. The new association is to be known as PFA Scotland and will effectively replace the Scottish Professional Footballers' Association (SPFA), which is now likely to be dissolved following the resignation of all its office bearers." So it would appear that it is officially a new organisation, although the awards are clearly a continuation of the old SPFA awards. Mind you, even the media can't seem to decide - Sky's story on the 2008 awards says "The Scottish Professional Footballers' Association awards took place in Glasgow on Sunday evening and McGeady took both honours" and also uses the acronym SPFA at least once............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly appear to be a new organisation, so I would say that all the award articles should be renamed PFA Scotland rather than creating new articles which would only serve to confuse. Darryl.matheson (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait and see how the awards are treated in, say, next season's Playfair/News of the World annuals before renaming/splitting the lists.........? Just a thought........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough but in the mean time the PFA Scotland Manager of the Year‎ article should be changed to a redirect to SPFA Manager of the Year‎ with the most recent reciepent added to that. Darryl.matheson (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added some sourced quotes to the Player of the Year article to confirm that the PFAS awards are considered to be a direct continuation of the SPFA awards (unfortunately the PFAS's own website is still "under construction" so we can't get their official word). Before I lodge a move request for SPFA Players' Player of the Year, though, I'd like to get some sort of official confirmation of the award's current exact official title. All the news reports simply call it the "PFA Scotland Player of the Year", but that might just be sloppy reporting........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian football club logos

Are the 39 templates in Category:Italian football club logos needed? None are being used, and the only incoming links to them are redirect pages... Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not redirects as such, they're templates which contain the team name and the kit colours, and something which is used in player infoboxes on the Italian-language Wikipedia. However, if they're not used on the English one then there's no real reason to have them...GiantSnowman (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be safe to speedily delete these under the "routine housekeeping" criterion (WP:CSD#G6) or would a TfD nomination be more appropriate? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in using them on my List of foreign Serie A players. --necronudist (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think they are necessary. If we allow using them for that list, then we should allow them for all football articles around, and I don't believe it's a good idea. --Angelo (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have initiated a group deletion nomination for the templates here. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability: fully pro team or league?

I know we've been over it before, but there is still a contradiction between WP:BIO#Athlete and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability, the key issue being whether playing for a fully professional team in a incompletely professional league is grounds for notability (in effect, in the English context, players at many, but not all, Conference teams). I'm not asking that we go over all the arguments again, but how we can do something to prevent all that discussion being rendered a waste of our collective time by the perfectly legitimate response exemplified by Angelo here "WP:FOOTYN is merely an essay and is superseded by WP:ATHLETE, which is instead current guideline." Can FootyN be raised somehow to the same status as other elements of WP:BIO? Kevin McE (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We could propose it with the WP:BIO people, stating that it was determined by consensus by experts on the subject, but they seemed to relish tearing it to shreds last time because people took about a billion footybios on Conference players to deletion review citing it. If they think that deletion review is going to get clogged up with conference footballers again they're sure to torpedo it. EP 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is down to the fact that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Notability was never adopted as being sound in the wider Wikipedia community. If you think the players concerned are notable, then you need to demonstrate multiple, significant, third-party coverage of them. This will amount to more than just listings in match reports and squad listings. If you can do that, fine. If not, they will fail. I think personally even the current guidelines are too inclusive - why should the fact that someome does something professionally be an automatic "pass"? If professional footballers are notable, why not professional teachers, plumbers or doctors? Find the coverage elsewhere first and not just assume they are notable. - fchd (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Swansea and League One

As things presently stand, Swansea City A.F.C. are the champions of the Football League One. However, this has not been placed on the FL1 article, most likely because of the Leeds United arbitrition hearing. What I want to know is should we put them in as champions, even though there is still a chance they won't be. --OZOO 09:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we should. As things exist at present, Swansea are champions. We don't know whether Leeds will get the points back, so IMO it's WP:CRYSTAL balling to say that Swansea might not be. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if it's relevant, but the league are holding off on presenting the trophy to Swansea until such time as the Leeds thing is resolved..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They have been "crowned League One champions" according to the BBC, which I think we can class an an WP:RS. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only authority who can declare them League Champions are the Football League. They have not done so, and have pointedly refused to allow them the trophy to parade around the ground this coming weekend. To declare that they are champions, when it is clear public knowledge that there is a case in progress that jeopardises that declaration, is to Crystal Ball the decision, something that the FL is clearly not in a position to do, that Wikipedia has a clear policy against doing, and that much of the UK media might yet regret doing. Kevin McE (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Manager/Player navigation box colour discussion

Interested editors might want to join this discussion about the colours of the navboxes for player and managers. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Crewe Alexandra's season template

I was going to take the season links out of Crewe Alexandra's club template, but upon creating the relevant new template, I was greeted with a message that it was deleted (Db-g7) back in February, with a rationale from Bibliomaniac15 of "Page has been superseeded by Template:Crewe Alexandra F.C." I wasn't aware of this policy. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Db-g7 means "The author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith, either explicitly or by blanking the page." Looks like the author of Template:Crewe Alexandra F.C. thinks his way is better. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Struway is right; Glennb28 (talk · contribs) created and eventually nominated for speedy deletion, Template:Crewe Alexandra F.C. seasons. I don't think FOOTY actually has any policy for this. I think the current Crewe setup is better personally, but that is me. Woody (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that template, I see absolutely no point of even having the Crewe Alexandra F.C. season 2008-09 page, until at least August. I think for the time being, that page should be redirected to Crewe Alexandra F.C. D.M.N. (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

noted players

There is a noted players section in the MoS for national football teams, is there an article in which this section is well referenced and free from original research, so that it can be used to base other articles on? I am at a loss as to how to properly do this section (The FA-class Scotland doesn't use it) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)