Template talk:Infobox football club season

Spacing

Can you please add spacing on the left-hand side to avoid the page text running into the template? A margin-left attribute should fix it. Fedgin | Talk 15:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Logo

What happened to the club logo appearing in the infobox? Surely this should have been discussed before the change...?  glennb28  t/c  17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is it. --Angelo 18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Preceding/succeeding?

Would it be possible to add "preceding season" and "succeeding season" parameters to the infobox? - PeeJay 11:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if this could be calculated automatically without an editor having to add more info to the template on the article page, similar to what I did at Template:Infobox World Road Running.

! Previous Championships:
{{!}} [[{{#time:Y |{{{date}}} - 1 year}} IAAF World Road Running Championships|{{#time:Y |{{{date}}} - 1 year}}]], {{flagicon{{!}}{{{prevcntry}}}}} [[{{{prevcity}}}]]}}
|-
! Next Championships:
| [[{{#time:Y |{{{date}}} + 1 year}} IAAF World Road Running Championships|{{#time:Y |{{{date}}} + 1 year}}]], {{flagicon|{{{nextcntry}}}}} [[{{{nextcity}}}]]

Unfortunately, to do this all club-season articles would need to have a standard naming convention, which I don't think they have at the moment. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 11:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be great, but like you say it's not possible at the minute. Until such time, then, I think it would be appropriate to just put in the parameters and then pipelink to the appropriate articles from there. - PeeJay 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding this information. Have a look at Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006-07 to see what it looks like in action. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This solution looks quite weird, who can ensure the two different columns to be equally sized? If you really want a succession box, you should think of it as a separate table. But I think it's not worth, better to consider creating navboxes instead. --Angelo 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not very pretty. Perhaps someone else could have a go at improving it... — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Average attendance

Is the average attendance intended to be for every home league game, or every home game in every competition? – PeeJay 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just league makes more sense. I'll update the docs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we assume that highest and lowest attendances are also for league competitions only? (Excluding play-offs?) In the season article I am working on, the highest attendance was in the FA Cup and the lowest attendance was in the League Cup. --Jameboy (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Cups should have their own season articles. As far as this template is concerned cup matches don't exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, should a note be added to this infobox to explain that to the reader (as per the stats in Template:Infobox Football biography, which has that "...domestic league only" caveat)? Otherwise I guess I could achieve the same with a footnote or two in the article itself. --Jameboy (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather hoped it would be self-evident; certainly it would seem obvious to me that cup games didn't factor into league stats, because cups and leagues are mostly entirely separate competitions. Mind starting a thread on WT:FOOTY about it, to see if we can get consensus from the project? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

League

Would it be possible to combine the "League" and "Final league position" lines? It looks odd having them on separate lines when the cup competitions are on one line. – PeeJay 20:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This field isn't being displayed in the infobox for some reason. - Dudesleeper talk 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be working in all the infoboxes I've looked at. Can you show me an example of where you've seen it not working? – PeeJay 23:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your issue now. OK, the "league" parameter won't show unless there is data in the "league_result" field. – PeeJay 23:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Kit graphics

What would people think of adding a kit box to this infobox similar to the one in the {{Infobox Football club}} template? It might be interesting to see how teams' kits changed over the years. – PeeJay 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, agree 100%. I'd tried a way of modelling Dundee United's strips within a 1990s review but feel it's messy - this option would allow me to fix it. Heightwatcher (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Can some-one point me to where I can find an explanation of how to "draw" the kits. I would like to add these to the early Southampton season articles (red & white quarters or red & white halves) but I have no idea how to do so. Cheers and thanks in advance. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these pages might be what you are looking for: {{Football kit}} {{Football kit/pattern list}} Juwe (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Help making similar infobox

Hi, don't basically nothing about making infoboxes myself, so asking for help here. Just wondering if someone could make a similar infobox to this for Gaelic games team seasons. Think it would basically be a copy of this infobox, except:

1. It is not necessary to have any of the attendance fields.
2. Instead of saying "Top goalscorer", could it simply read "Top scorer".
3. In the break down of top scorer could it be "Championship", instead of "League".
4. Its only necessary to have two kits, instead of the three in this infobox.

Would appreciate if someone with the know how would make this template. And could you call it Template:Infobox GAA team season. Thanks. Derry Boi (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Template:Infobox GAA team season. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Really appreciate it thanks. One small thing I forgot to mention, where the competitions are, instead of having the order Championship, then cup1, cup2, etc... would it be possible to have the cups show first, then a league field, then championship1 and championship2 if you have the time. Thanks. Derry Boi (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Captain

It just occurred to me, that it would make sense to add a field for the captain. As the formal leader of the team I would like to add him, where I use the template. Has this occurred to somebody else? Was captain conciously left out? OdinFK (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Record

Has anybody considered a parameter for the club's record that season? I mean the infobox already has the league table ranking, so why not include the club's record also? Ksy92003 (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stadium

Is it possible to add a parameter for the stadium used by the club? This would be useful for articles covering former seasons. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any response/comment, I have taken the liberty of adding this in. I hope I've not caused any problems. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to make it so that we can have the stadium's capacity in parentheses after the name of the stadium? It might lend some extra significance to the highest, lowest and average attendances. – PeeJay 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Player of the season

I recently added a "Player of the season" parameter to the template, as I saw the template didn't show this, but did show, amongst other things, both the league and the overall top goalscorer for the season. Player of the season awards in leagues and clubs are standard yearly occurrences and are even more prestigious than top scorer awards. Considering that I didn't think the change would have a dramatic effect on the template (adding one optional parameter) and I was careful not to mess up the coding of the rest of the template, I thought I would just Wikipedia:Be bold and do it.

My alteration was reverted by User:PeeJay2K3 with no description for the revert, so I assumed he thought the change to the template to be simple vandalism/test editing, especially considering I had neglected to sign in during that edit. As such, I signed in, re-added the parameter, and left an edit description stating that. However, PeeJay2K3 again reverted the edit, asking me to discuss the edit here first. Therefore, I am doing so. I don't know if PeeJay2K3 particularly objects to the edit as he is yet to make a comment on that, so I will wait to see what he and others say. Juwe (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Including a "player of the season" field means to add a piece of WP:POV information into the infobox, which should instead include only factual information who are very important with respect to the season, so I am against including such field. You can instead include such information into the text, but only if such award is recognized as official by the club itself. --Angelo (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I added it because there are often (maybe even usually) such awards officially made. I agree, it should only be official awards. Given that it is an optional parameter, I don't see a problem if the club makes no official award to a player - that particular page can just not have that parameter. Juwe (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The question is: this infobox should contain only information who is relevant enough in order to describe the season in a nutshell, and nothing more. Is an official award coming from the club acceptable in such category? I think no. Also, even if the award would be official, it would always be something non-neutral, since it was awarded by the club alone, so somebody else might disagree on defining X the 'player of the season'. This is obviously not happening when citing topscorers, highest attendance, etc., instead. --Angelo (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You say "this infobox should contain only information who is relevant enough in order to describe the season in a nutshell." On this count, player of the season is more relevant than top scorer. Top scorer usually signifies "best striker", whereas player of the year signifies most important player, whether highscoring or not. There is a reason why most prestigious individual awards are best player awards, such as FIFA World Player of the Year, Ballon d'Or and not simply highest scorer awards.

You seem to argue that any player of the season award is inherently WP:POV, because it requires a subjective judgment. But it is not your judgment or my judgment of who was the best player - if we are dealing with official club awards for player of the season, which we would be, there is some process by which the club has made such a determination. Official club awards are well-recognised as authoratitive for such purposes as naming the "player of the season". Removing POV doesn't mean removing any determination, however formal and official, that came about via some degree of subjectivity in the process. Most of Cristiano Ronaldo's awards, for example, are for being either the best player or part of the best team, but few argue that they are too POV to be included. Juwe (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronaldo's awards are not featured in the infobox, indeed. Football player infobox contain only facts (date/place of birth, career statistics, height, full name, etc.). You are free to include 'player of the year'-related info in the article prose, or even in a separate section, but the infobox is not really a suitable place. --Angelo (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Ronaldo's awards are not featured in the infobox, indeed." That is because the Cristiano Ronaldo page is about Ronaldo's whole career, and indeed his life. This particular template we are discussing is for pages detailing one particular season of a club.

"You are free to include 'player of the year'-related info in the article prose, or even in a separate section, but the infobox is not really a suitable place." I don't think you have made a compelling case for this (eg for why "club season top scorer" is more important information than "club player of the season") Juwe (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

By the same token, nor have you given a good reason why the player of the season should be included in the infobox. As Angelo has suggested, a club's "player of the season" may be decided by various reliable sources; by the club itself, a fan organisation or even a media source. Where would we draw the line? Which one of these is the "correct" player of the season? What if we have several different opinions on who the player of the season is? There is no such problem with parameters such as top scorer or average attendance, but this idea is fraught with contentious issues. – PeeJay 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"By the same token, nor have you given a good reason why the player of the season should be included in the infobox." I think I made a good case that a club's player of the season was more relevant to how the club's season went than their top goalscorer.

"A club's "player of the season" may be decided by various reliable sources; by the club itself, a fan organisation or even a media source. Where would we draw the line?" I guess I don't see the same controversy as you 2. The club's player of the season should be the award that is officially determined or sanctioned by the club. Even in exceptional cases where there are 2 equally valid claims to official "player of the season" status (eg "fans' player of the season" and "players' player of the season"), you could simply include both but with a line break. Juwe (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It has now been several days and no-one has responded to my most recent post. Considering I have addressed all counterarguments to the proposal of having a "player of the season" parameter in my comments and no-one has attempted to argue against my previous post (not that the goal should necessarily be to argue against it), it seems reasonable to assume the edit is a valid edit. I note here that my edit isn't even a new idea in wikipedia football templates. Equivalent parameters already exist in {{Infobox international football competition}} and {{Infobox football tournament season}}, so this edit would simply bring this template into line with those templates in that respect. Nonetheless, I will wait a while before re-implementing the edit, to see if any new objections are launched. Juwe (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no argument to discuss in: you have failed to achieve any kind of consensus towards your proposal, and there's nothing else to discuss. At this moment it's just you showing support for adding such field, with all other comment here being against it, so please stop thinking about re-implementing the edit - unless, of course, you manage to build a consensus for it. Regards, --Angelo (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, firstly this wasn't a vote, it was (maybe is?) a discussion. Secondly, you declare "there's nothing else to discuss" because "all other comment here being against it". What you mean is, in the course of this discussion, 1 editor has made comments in favour and 2 against the edit, hardly the overwhelming consensus against the edit that you make it out to be. And thirdly, and most importantly, any debate about the edit should be on substantive grounds, not just that you have staked out one side or another, and your last post declaring "argument over" doesn't even attempt a substantive argument. As I mentioned in my previous post "I have addressed all counterarguments to the proposal of having a "player of the season" parameter in my comments and no-one has attempted to argue against my previous post". If you have a legitimate case against the edit, let's hear it. Juwe (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First you make a proposal, and then we implement it if a consensus is found, not the opposite. Please don't game the system. --Angelo (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, OK. Asking for substantive arguments is "gaming the system". Got it. I can't be bothered trying to continue to engage you in rational conversation on this topic. I guess you "win". Congratulations. Juwe (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:CONSENSUS? It is Wikipedia policy, and it is supposed to be one of the very first page you should read before to join this project. I strongly suggest you to read "Consensus as a result of the editing process". The proposal in the talk page was subsequently replied by two editors, both being against it, so at the moment there's no chance your edits may make it to the main template, sorry. If you fail to accept that basic policy, then you are just disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's not me against you, but just what policy and behavioural guidelines say. Hope to have been clear. Regards, --Angelo (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Angelo, you accused me of "gaming the system" for wanting to have a substantive discussion about the merits of the edit. I would love to reach a consensus, but that's pretty difficult to do if the people who disagree with you refuse to engage on the substance of that disagreement! If you object to an edit, you should be able to back up your objections with solid argument. And I know, earlier in the discussion you did mention a couple of reasons, but I addressed your reasons in subsequent comments, and you have since been either unable or unwilling or both to challenge my reasoning, but maintain your objection to the edit nonetheless. However, like I said, I'm about ready to give up on this particular edit, it just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Juwe (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because you challenged our reasons for not implementing this change does not make our concerns moot. You cannot just ignore two people's objections just because they don't meet with your approval. Suffice it to say, we do not have a consensus here to implement any changes, hence we maintain the status quo. – PeeJay 22:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Just because you challenged our reasons for not implementing this change does not make our concerns moot." Straw man arguments like this don't help. Here's what I actually said:

• "Considering I have addressed all counterarguments to the proposal of having a "player of the season" parameter in my comments and no-one has attempted to argue against my previous post..."
• "I addressed your reasons in subsequent comments, and you have since been either unable or unwilling or both to challenge my reasoning..."

Your next statement is particularly ironic: "You cannot just ignore two people's objections just because they don't meet with your approval." I haven't ignored any of the arguments put by either of you. The only person who has had arguments ignored in this conversation is me. I guess we take different approaches. You take the approach where you decide whether you like a proposal or not and then lodge your immutable approval/objection. I take the approach that the best-reasoned argument should prevail. Given that, I'm not going to waste any more time on this issue. Good day to both of you. Juwe (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You may not have ignored our arguments, but you certainly are ignoring our objections. You have failed to convince us that this change is worth implementing. – PeeJay 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've hardly ignored them. I simply believed them to be based on reasoning, which by it's very nature is susceptible to be changed by argument. I have consistently invited counterarguments by those that object. I now see this was naive. I accept your point "You have failed to convince us that this change is worth implementing" and so will not continue to argue for this edit. Juwe (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

State League

I want to add an optional "state league topscorer" section.

If anyone has seen already, I have carefully reconstructed the infobox so only minor modifications need to be done to individual seasons (specifically, erasing the "breaks" that used to be needed because the infobox was ridiculously short). On the top scorers section, "league scorer" needs to be changed to "national league scorer" since not every national league has the phrase "league" on it. It has to be remember that this infobox is anglocentric, focusing on England, and assumes that everyone knows what "league" refers to (which is not the case).

Also, that doubles for helping the "state league topscorer" section to become viable. As I have mentioned, Brazilian clubs participate in two leagues (a state and a national league). That will help tell the difference between the two. As others have seen, I added a note stating that the section is only to be used for Brazilian football as it is radically different from most of the world. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind on that. I have made it so the topscorer section would refer specifically to the competition the player is topscorer of. Now, it is possible to place topscorers for all competitions the club has participated on. Just align, say, "cup2" to "cup2 topscorer". Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In future, could you please centralise this type of discussion at the Wikiproject so that it gets more views and more likelihood of getting a consensus? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Four kits?

An editor recently added space for a fourth kit to this infobox, but I reverted because I think it would make the infobox too wide; it's already pretty wide with three kits! Furthermore, how many teams actually have four kits, and is it even worth showing the ones that do? I had actually pondered this idea myself a couple of days ago in order to show Manchester United's European kit in their 1997-98 to 2000-01 season articles, but I came to the same conclusion as above. Anyone else got any opinions? – PeeJay 12:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No need at all for so many kit options. Two would be enough for me, but there you go. Your reversion was, in my opinion, correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Change to the result field

The request isn't so much a request to change the field but the documentation of the field to reflect current use, mid-season. Most often the field is used to reflect the club's current place in the league. The documentation indicates that it is "The final result achieved in the season.". I would like to amend it to allow for the current value during the season itself. This was briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎ and the consensus seems to be "go with the flow". Are there any objections here? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Review requested. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An 'international' request - how to convert and use the template in another language?

^As above. I would like to make a Danish season article about a football club from Denmark. The case is, that I will create and write it in Danish. When it comes to the reason, it is that I do not find it significant for en-wikipedia, since they do not compete in Europa League or Champions League. So my 'concern', or, perhaps rather 'challenge', is that; how can I make an easy and practical solution on fx "Template:Infobox football club season", in my national language? I have only contributed for like a few months now, so I would appreciate the assistance very much. I reckon that wikipedians who also uses their native language, to expand their national wikipedia-version, would find this handy. We are about 5.5 million people in my country, and I try to make the Danish Wikipedia better, because people tend to, for obvious and natural reasons, use the english wikipedia per automatic. So this is part of my 'mission' to make Danish Wikipedia better ind both quantity and quality. Sine Cera, -Infobesity (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You would copy the existing template to the Danish space. Insert appropriate Danish terms for the English ones. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Club crest

I am considering adding a parameter in the template for freely available (though not non-free ones) club crests used in the season to be placed. Comments welcome - if no objections are raised in the near future I shall proceed. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 00:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should free logos be allowed but not non-free ones? I understand the copyright situation behind it, but this move would create a massive inconsistency between clubs with free logos and those with non-free logos. I would oppose any change of this nature. – PeeJay 00:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What freely available crests are there? It's my understanding that they're all copyrighted under US law. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The logos in this category and its subcategories, for starters. Also, this. For seasons where one is available, I don't see why we shouldn't use them. It is of course unfortunate that copyrighted logos can't be used in the same way, and that is unlikely to change - I accept that (although it is perhaps interesting to compare our approach with that of the German Wikipedia. They use club crests in league articles to show results over a season and in FA Cup articles to show finalist's badges). Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 13:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What would the club crests actually bring to those articles? The club logo is really only necessary on the club's main article and perhaps articles about associated teams (c.f. Manchester United F.C. and Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy), but not on every season article. – PeeJay 15:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same way that the purpose of non-free logos can be to "assure the readers that they have reached the right articles" (default text loaded when "Infobox" is chosen for the "Use" field), a historical logo can assure a reader that they have reached the right team and the right season. Even though WP:NFCC is unlikely to allow that use for non-free images, the same restrictions do not apply to freely available ones. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 16:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the club's name and the season in the article title isn't enough to assure readers that they have reached the right club and the right season? – PeeJay 16:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You could make exactly the same point about club logos on the club articles. If the logos are freely available, I don't see why they shouldn't be used on an article where they'd be relevant. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 19:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Number of cups

Chelsea F.C. has participated in 8 competitions (7 cups in addition to the domestic league) in the 2012–13 season. As the number of cups in the template is limited to 6, all of them are not displayed in 2012–13 Chelsea F.C. season article. So, it would be better to increment the cup limit to 7 or even 8. --Jairodz (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I'll see about fixing that. – PeeJay 14:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Can a width attribute be added to the infobox?

Hi, I am a keen editor of football club season articles, but I'd like to make a request. Is there any possibility that a width attribute could be added to the infobox, so that we can define its width in order to accommodate contents? One of the main articles I maintain at the moment is squashing things together, e.g. putting the manager's name on two lines and messing up my formatting with regard to attendance facts (I have tried to put [attendance] v [team] (break) [date, small] so it is consistent). Any help would be much appreciated, thanks! Andre666 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@Andre666: just wrap the line inside a {{nowrap}} template. if you need help, provide an example. the problem with setting the width explicitly is that you will get differing results on different browsers. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Aha, you're a star, that's just what I was after! #beeneditingwikipediaforfiveyearsbutstillsomehowanoob Andre666 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wording of average attendance attribute

Hi fellow editors. I've just noticed that the wording of the average attendance attribute is 'Average home league attendance', rather than just 'Average home attendance'. Is there any way this could be changed back? I understand the logic behind this, but if it's left open then it gives editors the choice to define only league or both, marking them as such; this is also consistent with the top scorers and highest/lowest attendance sections. This is extremely common from what I've seen in my experience editing football season articles. Thanks. Andre666 (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed at WP:Footy and the overwhelming consensus was for the wording to be Average home league attendance. This was because it is meant as a box for the average home league attendance based on figures from [1] and similar sites. Just having Average home attendance was an ambiguous title, it led to some pages having an average of all competitive home games and others just having an average of home league games (The intended format, see parameters section at: Template:Infobox football club season). Cheers, VanguardScot 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but the only problem I have is that there is no way to define that you want to use both without it not making sense, i.e. I can put "League: XX,XXX<br />Overall: XX,XXX" but that doesn't make sense when the attribute is named this way. Is there any way to add an alternative for those of us who want to do an overall attendance as well? Andre666 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Footy is against having too many stats in the infobox, see WP:STATS. If you want more information in the infobox than there is already consensus for I suggest taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and getting other football editors consensus to add more stats. The current consensus for attendance stats in the infobox are for Highest home attendance (All competitions), Lowest home attendance (All competitions) and Average attendance (Home league matches only). Cheers, VanguardScot 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding last 5 matched result as icon in template

Hi, How about adding last 5 match results to infobox.

Similar to results by round like this, just result box ----Rasulnrasul (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Round	1	2	3	4	5
Result	L	W	W	L	D

Source:
W = Win; D = Draw; L = Loss

Absolutely not. – PeeJay 01:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why ? -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A better question is, how do you see it improving the infobox?

One problem is poses is that with leagues that do not have a balanced season—teams do not finish the week with the same number of games played—it will cause room for speculation.

I can see that it's a key piece of information for the club's season though, but I would like to hear your reasons why you think it improves the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What relevance do the last five fixtures have? Can you not see the last five results (and more besides) further down the page? The infobox is supposed to summarise the season as a whole, not just the last five games. And is that the last five league games? Or all games? Some teams don't take part in all competitions, so the last five games would mean different things to different teams. Basically, it's pointless. – PeeJay 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Last 5 matches result shows current form of the team. Its not only league matches but for showing last 5 matches played by club.(even we can think about how to show kind of match like whether its league or champions league or friendly.). And the sample i showed is not the exact which i am proposing, we need another similar template, which all of us can agree in case if we go further. Please look at the form coloumn in the link Bundesliga table. Thanks. -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the team's current form? We show their current league position and the round they are currently in in cup competitions, and that should be enough. If you want to know the results of their recent matches, you can look further down the page or check a news site. – PeeJay 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And what do we show at the end of the season? I would agree only if it were the entire season's result, not only the five most recent matches of the current season. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of current form is to get an impression of very recent results, even the league position doest represent always form, a team at top in league may lose games and a team at bottom may win matches. Even if i scroll down i need check dates since many teams play different cups and friendlies. At the end of the season just no info. I didn't undestand what do you mean by entire season result in infobox ? We cannt show entire season in infobox. --Thanks Rasulnrasul (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, basically, this all boils down to the fact that (at least in my interpretation) what you're suggesting would be a violation of WP:RECENT. The info changes too frequently during the season, and then is no longer relevant once the season is over. Pointless. – PeeJay 23:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont think its violation as it doest change frequently even it changes it means page will be updated with match info. We trying to give summary(like "WDWLW") of recent matches. Rasulnrasul (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the team's "current form" becomes irrelevant once the season is over. Furthermore, you still haven't answered my question about the encyclopaedic relevance of just the last five matches. – PeeJay 11:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

yes current form becomes irrelevant for old seasons and it will not be shown once season is over. If you are asking about number of "5", it can be discussed to keep any number sufficient to show. If you stick to your reason, i understand that you agreeing to keep the form info in club infobox. -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

# where is the data going to come from? Are you suggesting that we propose an addition to wikidata to host results rather than having editors manually edit and maintain the data? We could, in that case, modify articles drastically.

# If they are to be edited manually, who is going to maintain the data whether mid-season, to display current results, or at the end of the season, to remove the data? For every wikipedia article from a popular team that has multiple editors updating the article, we have a hundred more that are essentially unmaintained or poorly maintained. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

They should be edited manually, the reason you are telling about maintaining is same for all other info too. And its not much info just changing 5 letters which is similar to what we have in result by round. -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ut's not "just changing 5 letters" What a joke. It's about doing it correctly and regularly. You clearly missed the statement that not all articles are maintained. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking why you've chosen five, I'm asking why any selection of the club's most recent matches is at all relevant. Suffice it to say, I don't think this info will be added and this conversation should be closed. – PeeJay 18:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I wrote many times it shows teams current form, and its relevant for a football club. You can understand why the form is included in many places by looking into few of these

• http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/tables
• http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/form-guide.html
• http://www1.skysports.com/football/competitions/premier-league/tables
• http://livescore.betting-directory.com/spanish-la-liga-table.php
• http://www.theguardian.com/football/euro-2016-qualifiers/table
• http://www.footstats.co.uk/?task=formguide
• http://www.soccerstats.com/latest.asp?league=spain -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons stated above. Unless we drastically modify the template and push the results to Wikidata it will become a difficult, manual task that will result in hundreds of out-of date articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not a joke, its just one extra letter for every match played by team, considering if a page is is update with match info, joke is thinking that this one extra letter update makes 100’s of pages out of date. If a club page is not getting updated its just optional to show in that club page. -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, nope, never, Nein. Pointless and really, REALLY not needed. Kante4 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Let me offer this example. On matchday twenty, I have to remove the results for matchday 15, move 16 down to first position, 17 to second and finally add the fifth position. Or are you suggesting that we list all of the positions and have the template display only the final five? Still, it's going to be a lot of manual work to keep results up for every club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Kit captions & overlinking

I would suggest the following changes to the captions under the kit sets:

• Change the captions to non-bold (MOS:CAPFRAG).
• Remove the link to Kit (association football) after the first set (WP:OVERLINKING).

Thanks for your attention. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it a caption or a label? Is there a difference between the two terms?

It wouldn't be overlinking, but rather WP:REPEATLINKing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I suppose as a pre-generated caption, it's both a label and a caption. If there's a guideline about labels in infoboxes being in boldface, I haven't found it. (MOS:INFOBOX only mentions bold once, for the title of the infobox. MOS:TEXT only mentions colours and font sizes in infoboxes.) Perhaps it is more of a practice than a rule? With most infobox images, though, including pictures, maps and chemical diagrams, boldface doesn't generally seem to be used for the captions and/or labels. The infobox of Benzene, for example, gets the job done with a minimum of boldface. But it's the repeated bold link in this infobox that bothers me more than the bold itself. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

Please change the following to match {{Infobox football club}}

• {{{pattern_name1|Home}}} [[Kit (association football)|{{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]] to {{#ifeq:{{{pattern_name1|Home}}}|Home|[[Kit (association football)|Home {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]]|{{{pattern_name1|Home}}} [[Kit (association football)|{{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]]}}
• {{{pattern_name2|Away}}} [[Kit (association football)|{{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]] to {{#ifeq:{{{pattern_name2|Away}}}|Away|[[Away colours|Away {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]]|{{{pattern_name2|Away}}} {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}}}
• {{{pattern_name3|Third}}} [[Kit (association football)|{{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]] to {{#ifeq:{{{pattern_name2|Away}}}|Away|[[Away colours|Away {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]]|{{{pattern_name2|Away}}} {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}}}

Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

@Alex 21: The third kit part above is wrong. It shall be like the following:

• {{#ifeq:{{{pattern_name3|Third}}}|Third|[[Third jersey|Third {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}]]|{{{pattern_name3|Third}}} {{#if:{{{American|}}}|colors|colours}}}}

and @S.A. Julio:, why did you do this? The away and third kits were differentiated for a reason. Explain your reason here.

And also can you make the average attendance to count itself {{#if:{{{attendance|}}}|{{formatnum: {{{attendance|0}}}}}{{#if:{{{matches|}}}| ({{formatnum: {{#expr: {{{attendance|0}}} / {{{matches|1}}} round 0}}}} per match) }} }} like in Template:Infobox international football competition? – Flix11 (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly unintended, copied the wrong bit of code. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Get this sorted please. – PeeJay 22:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done (FWIW, pings added after the initial post do not work, so I never received the ping, so I was not aware that it needed fixing. Perhaps your post could be a bit more polite next time, PeeJay2K3.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

top scorers

Can you change the order of league scorer and season scorer. It makes more sense and more correct for the highest amount to be first and the lower amount to be underneath that. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Most infobox content only concerns itself with league, so why wouldn't we just remove "overall"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we could probably just leave it as it is. Both pieces of information are within a line of each other, so their order is pretty irrelevant. – PeeJay 08:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

{league3} parameter

Can someone add one more league 3 to the info box? I have User:Govvy/1897–98 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season in my info box, and that season Tottenham are recorded as playing in three leagues in those early seasons, I wanted to add that to the info box. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked ages ago to add league3 and league 3 result to the info box, it hasn't been done, can no one add this?? Govvy (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

To comply with ENGVAR, I'm requesting that the following line of code be changed so that the autogenerated short description does not use "football" in American articles. Some additional work might need to be done to accommodate the other forms of English that use British-like spelling but also "soccer" as their term for the sport.

Current: {{main other|{{Short description|2=noreplace|{{Strip tags|{{delink|{{{club|}}}}}}} {{#if:{{{season|}}}|{{delink|{{{season|}}}}} football season|Football team season}}}}}}

Proposed: {{main other|{{Short description|2=noreplace|{{Strip tags|{{delink|{{{club|}}}}}}} {{#if:{{{season|}}}|{{delink|{{{season|}}}}} {{#if:{{{American|}}}|soccer|football}} season|{{#if:{{{American|}}}|Soccer|Football}} team season}}}}}} SounderBruce 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of wording from season topscorer documentation

I've boldly removed the wording If the top scorer in all competitions has all of his goals in the league, leave this parameter blank from the documentation of |season topscorer=. Can't find any reasoning for why it was there, can't think of any, apart from saving writing or avoiding what might look like unnecessary duplication of content, and it certainly isn't widely followed. There are six pages in Category:2021–22 Premier League by team whose top scorer has all his goals in league competition (Aston Villa, Burnley, Leeds United, Newcastle United, Norwich City and Watford) and all six use both |league topscorer= and |season topscorer=. As do the featured articles 1993–94 Gillingham F.C. season and 2000–01 Gillingham F.C. season. In Category:2022–23 EFL Championship by team, 10 of the 11 relevant pages use both parameters, and so did the 11th until somebody changed it yesterday and made me aware of the issue.

If the reader's used to seeing two top scorer rows marked League and All, it's not obvious that a single row means the top scorer didn't score any cup goals so League and All are the same. They might think it meant All and we don't know League (source didn't split goals by competition?), or it meant League and we don't know All (no source for cups?) – not all notable club/seasons are as easily sourceable in detail as recent big-league seasons. It could just mean nobody's got round to filling All in yet, as at 1985–86 Chelsea F.C. season.

Whatever, we shouldn't expect our readers to have to guess what a single row means. There's a difference between |season topscorer= being absent because it's the same as another parameter, and it being absent because Wikipedia doesn't know what it is, and we need to let the reader see the difference. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)