Template talk:2013–14 in English football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject England (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Football (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the English football task force.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the season article task force.

Template Style[edit]

Can the two users currently edit warring please have their discussion on here and here ensuring that there is a consensus for any proposed changes.

In my opinion while the proposed changes are clearer it does make it a beast of a template (more so than it is currently). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I think if we will accept proposed changes [1], it will be very high template(!), and we must change all such templates, not only this one. Thats why I have reverted this edits. NickSt (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have come up with a new template which is condensed, much shorter than the one I previously argued for (6 lines shorter), but still retains the high level of detail I think made it better. What do you think? As for editing previous templates, I don't see the need for doing that. Articles and templates will evolve just as football itself does - for example the new style I am arguing for places leagues into the levels they represent in the English football league system, but not so long ago those leagues weren't even a part of the system, and could arguably therefore be deleted from older templates. User:Kivo (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I think one link per line is unneeded feature. Put levels 1-6 into one/two lines, and it will be normal high of the template. Also you have used many anchors (#) in this navbox. If user click on such links, it will not be bolded below that pages (compare with current template). NickSt (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't see why this needs changing. The original is fine and feel it's unnecessary to add more detail to an already bloated template. It seems this is just change for the sake of change, without any huge benefit. Keep the original. JMHamo (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I think the old template is arbitrary and ambiguous on many issues - Why do the Premier League & Football League get one group between them, whereas the Football Conference gets one group to itself? - Why are the women's and youth leagues entered as a sub-group to the Premier League & Football League instead of being given their own group? - The level 9-10 group is very ambiguous; to look at the list of leagues in this group you would think they all lie at the same level of the English football league system, but some have divisions at level 9 & 10, some have only one level 9 division and some have only one level 10 division. I think the newer version, although admittedly longer, is a lot clearer in showing which level of the English football league system each league lies at, and each competition fits perfectly into the group it is placed in. To compromise on the lengthier version I submitted a shortened version here - even though this too is longer than the original, it is, in my opinion, a lot clearer and unambiguous. I have also failed to find any rules concerning template height on Wikipedia. Kivo (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the original version is preferable. The new version has far too much whitespace. Number 57 11:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Having had time to think about this I've come to the opinion that the club seasons section should be split into a separate template which is normally collapsed. The rest of the original template looks fine to me. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 12:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I've made yet another new template, taking further into consideration some of the remarks in this talk page. Let me know what you think. It is roughly the same height as the original, but uses less white space, is more clear, and each link fits into the right category. I think it's a vast improvement on the original, which in my opinion was very random and arbitray (e.g. Womens competitions found under Football League). Thanks Kivo (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not support changing this template because it does not provide any major improvements, which will add value, so I can not see a good reason to implement the new version. Please do not change without gaining WP:consensus from the wider WT:FOOTY community detailing why you think your New version is "better". JMHamo (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have already stated why I think the new version is better - please describe why you think the old version is better Kivo (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Procedural comment - any change to a template style will have to be implemented across all of these templates - every season for every country i.e. every '[xxxx-xx] in [country] football' template. It therefore needs as wide an input as possible - it might be best starting a fresh discussion at WT:FOOTBALL to seek consensus. GiantSnowman 11:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  • As I've already stated, I'm not sure why this this needs to be the case? The templates for English football seasons have evolved year on year - they've never stayed exactly the same, or used the same lay-out. Take a look at the 2009-10 (with a 'Regional cups' group) and the 2011-12 ('Lower leagues' group abandoned - 'Level 7-8' & 'Level 9-10' groups added) templates - they've changed year on year. As for suggesting that seasonal templates from ALL countries need changing if this one template is changed - I think that's bizarre - check out the current template for this year's French football. It's completely different to the English version. If you're suggesting that all templates need to be the same for every year and every country, then they all already need changing. Kivo (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
For uniformity, for MOS reasons. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
As I've shown - MOS has changed year on year. Why not this year too? Especially when it improves the template? Kivo (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Mo, MOS has not changed every year - what you mean is that people are simply not sticking to MOS. GiantSnowman 12:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Going on that reasoning, the original template already needs changing - the 2011-12 template includes youth competitions as an anchor after the Premier League link, while the 2012-13 template gives youth competitions their own sub-group. Who made this change? Why was it not reverted? Why was that change not discussed like this one? Why did that change carry on into the 2013-14 template? Going back another year, the 2010-11 season has a group called 'Lower leagues', whereas the 2011-12 season abandons this group and forms two groups instead 'Level 7-8' and 'Level 9-10' - why wasn't this discussed in the talk page? Why was this edit allowed to remain, even though it changed the MOS? Why has that not been changed back but mine was? It all seems very arbitrary to me - I still haven't seen a good reason why a template that has so many flaws and inconsistencies can not be changed to one that corrects those flaws. Kivo (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this template that has been created is obviously a lot better than the one that's there now. I'd change it. (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Not sure what else I can do to get it changed to be honest Kivo (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)