Template talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Adding List and FL classes for all taskforces


The version at Template:Football/sandbox introduces the following -

  • Enables List and FL classes for the main project and all taskforces/sub-projects
  • Enables Template and Category classes for the main project only
  • Merges the USA and Canada inputs into one to cut down code duplication.

A diff of the changes made can be seen here and all relevant WP1.0 categories have been created.

Could the admin who moves the sandbox across to the main template also re-introduce the padlock icon at the bottom please? Cheers. Nanonic (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done that, thanks. Woody (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Two in one day? You'll be thinking I buggered up the first edit! (and you'd be right)

It seems that although a lot of people use FL-Class as a separate entity to FA, WP1.0 bot doesn't. Therefore to allow people to use it AND to keep our statistics correctly updated, this edit puts all FL class articles in Category:FA-Class football articles and the correct taskforce FA categories. Why? because WP1.0 bot only currently counts articles in the FA category. List-Class is supported by the bot though, so that doesn't need to change.

An updated version to move across can be found at Template:Football/sandbox (diff) (remember to re-add the padlock after!) and many thanks to User:Paulbrock for kindly pointing this error out to me. Cheers, Nanonic (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for your help. I read that the V.1.0 people are considering implementing an FL class. Until then, thanks for the fixes. Woody (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Does WP1.0 bot recognise FL class yet? – PeeJay 09:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've checked this out, and, as shown by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics, it would seem that WP1.0 bot does recognise FL-Class articles now. Therefore, I have drafted a new version of the template to include FL-Class articles. The draft can be viewed here. – PeeJay 11:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


I streamlined Template:Football/doc and created examples of how the template will appear under various parameter scenarios at Template:Football/Examples. Congrats on who ever is maintaining the template: easy-to-read concise code with no extras and everything working as designed. GregManninLB (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Add C class

{{editprotected}} The following line needs to be added for each taskforce,e.g.:

|c|C=[[Category:C-Class football in England articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Yes check.svg Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Man Utd taskforce

{{editprotected}} Any chance someone could add a parameter for the Man Utd taskforce to the template? It's just been created today. – PeeJay 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, if you provide the code. :) Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Disabled while awaiting code. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the code:

{{!}}[[Image:Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg|40px|center]]
{{!}}This {{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|non-article page|article}} is supported by '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Manchester United task force|Manchester United task force]]'''.


[[Category:Manchester United F.C. task force articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|High|high=[[Category:High-importance Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Mid|mid=[[Category:Mid-importance Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|Low|low=[[Category:Low-importance Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|#default=[[Category:Unknown-importance Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|fa|Fa|FA=[[Category:FA-Class Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|a|A=[[Category:A-Class Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|ga|Ga|GA=[[Category:GA-Class Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|b|B=[[Category:B-Class Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|start|Start=[[Category:Start-Class Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|stub|Stub=[[Category:Stub-Class Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|NA|Na|na|Template|template|List|list|Cat|cat=[[Category:Non-article Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
|#default=[[Category:Unassessed Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Is that everything you need? – PeeJay 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, something goes wrong when I add that code, which suggests I'm doing it incorrectly. I've reduced this to semi-protection while you add the code; let me know when you're done. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it, so I've added it to the template. I guess I should have looked at the code that was already in the template rather than looking at the code people had requested to be added on this page. – PeeJay 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject German Football: request for German football parameter


I'm just wondering that there is no parameter for a page in scope of Wiki Project German Football. While the project doesn't seem to have been very active in recent months (no offense), I have created several sites and am somewhat envious to the English, Spanish, Italian, etc. who have this beautyful National football on their talkpage.

Is there a good reason (one other than "It just wasn't done yet") why there is no such parameter? If there is not could you please add it?

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} The version at the template:football/sandbox introduces the "Germany=yes" and "germany=yes" variables (both do the same thing) with the German flag as the icon and has been tested. All WP1.0 categories have been created. And to answer your question OdinFK - it was just never requested. There are still a few sub-projects that either use their own banners or don't gather statistics for WP1.0. Nanonic (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. Thanks a lot. OdinFK (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)



There's an extra line of whitespace below this template. Can someone remove the responsible line break, please? (for that matter, does this really need to be fully protected?) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Which line break? I can't seem to find one. And unprotection at any level is out of the question, as this template is used on approximately 71000 pages. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So after experimenting, it appears that the problem is that the tmbox CSS class uses different padding from the messagebox class. fix is to update the classes in the first line:
{| class="{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|collapsible collapsed tmbox nested-talk|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{small|}}}}}|yes|tmbox small-talk|tmbox standard-talk}}}}"
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - let me know if it causes any problems. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Slight problem. The football template does not now align within Template:WikiProjectBanners. It is wider than the other project templates. See Talk:Elfed Evans as an example. --Jameboy (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Tmbox states that it should not be used for Wikiproject banners - this would appear to apply to the class as well. I've reverted the change. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


After a request on Template talk:WPBannerMeta, I've had a shot at converting this template to the Meta one. Take a look at Template:Football/sandbox and Template:Football/testcases and feel free to make changes. Non-League and Irish football I couldn't find categories for so I added a link to a non-existant one. —Borgardetalk 10:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Anyone wanna update them? It's been a while with no objections even after notifying the project. It'll end up being easier to update and just a few new categories being created. Thanks. —Borgardetalk 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, guess I should have been more clear. The code on this page should be updated to Template:Football/sandbox, which is the updated code to include Template:WPBannerMeta. —Borgardetalk 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, one of the problems with implementing that code would be as you've already pointed out - some of the subprojects don't use WP1.0 assessments and haven't expressed an interest in doing so. Also it seems that this may alter the display of the English football portal which currently usurps Portal:Association football when England=yes. Also, the nested version is a bit of a mess - is there anyway it can just display WikiProject Football on nesting as it does currently? Nanonic (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Nesting can be done, Sub-projects not using assessments can easily be done. I'll have to look into that Portal thing though, I didn't actually notice it when looking at the code. I'll see if anything can be done for that. I've removed the edit protect thing for now, I'll see if these changes can be implemented. —Borgardetalk 12:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the nesting names and the ones not using assessments, but still left a main category for each article. Just so all their articles actually appear in a category. I don't know about the Portal thing yet though, will still see. But as you can see, it will be easy to add assessments if these projects ever choose to do so. —Borgardetalk 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)



I have addressed all concerns raised above and the banner is now working exactly how it should behave. The code is at Template:Football/sandbox and the testpage is at Template:Football/testcases. Can an admin please replace this page with the code from Template:Football/sandbox, excluding the first sandbox line? Thanks! —Borgardetalk 06:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce-specific importance

Is there any chance that the taskforce-specific importance parameters could be made optional? All of the articles related to the Man Utd taskforce have lost their importance because of recent changes, and it's really rather infuriating that I now have to go through the entire lot just so that the statistics table works properly. – PeeJay 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a code for this request. This should make your request easily implemented by admins. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The simplest way to implement this request would be to revert the template to the way it was before the most recent change. As it is, I have no idea how to modify {{WPBannerMeta}}, so that's out of the question. Regardless, as the thread below this one proves, it's not just the Man Utd taskforce that is having problems, so I suggest a reversion to the last good version of the template (this one). – PeeJay 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the Man-Utd use the main importance? Because this is easy to implement, it simple means changing {{ManUtd-importance|}} to {{importance|}} in the code. It is no biggy. —Borgardetalk 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance in Project German Football broken?


I don't even know whether this is the right place to ask, but it seems as good a place as any to me. The article importance categories inside Project German football don't work any more. Have a look! Other than Saxony-Anhalt Cup there are just no-importance articles despite almost all articles being correctly tagged. The really strange part is that the articles are in the right categories in project football. Probably the last update of this template broke something. The template has become much smaller as far as I can see.

Regards, OdinFK (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen, this seems to be the same problem as in the posting above. Excuse for double posting if you like to consider it as that. OdinFK (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)



The two points mentioned above are now fixed. Code is at Template:Football/sandbox. Please update accordingly. —Borgardetalk 00:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. Quick question: what should we do if the the Man Utd taskforce decides to use its own importance scale in the future? – PeeJay 09:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Done Stifle (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to PJ, if you ever want to use your own importances, change the following:

  |TF_3_IMPORTANCE      = yes
   |tf 3 importance={{{importance|}}}


  |TF_3_IMPORTANCE      = yes
   |tf 3 importance={{{ManUtd-importance|{{{manutd-importance|}}}}}}

All that specifies is the importance parameter, which as of now is just "importance=". —Borgardetalk 12:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotect}} Based on the fixes above, can someone please replace the current code with the code at Template:Football/sandbox, which has fixed this wider problem of task-force importance ratings. —Borgardetalk 12:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taskfore inmportance ratings

Please could someone undo the edits that destroyed the importance ratings for Argentine football articles (Wikipedia:ArF#Assessment) as has been done for the other projects above. EP 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The change has already been made, the assessment table for Argentina football just hasn't updated yet. —Borgardetalk 03:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
There you go, the table is all updated now. —Borgardetalk 04:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Iran football

{{editprotect}} Please update the template with the code from Template:Football/sandbox to include the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran football. —Borgardetalk 05:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point? Do they want it? Are they going to be using assessments? Have all the categories been set up? Nanonic (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The project already has the assessment links laid out. I can create the categories in no time so that's no problem. It doesn't affect the main project at all so it's not controversial.—Borgardetalk 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Categories are all made and added to the assessments list for Wikipedia 1.0, so the table will update on the next bots run if the code is updated by then. —Borgardetalk 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Elonka 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What? Thanks for making my role in the project harder. The project already has all the assessment ready, it just needs to be implemented into the code, which I have provided for you. This is simply following what other country specific sub-projects already have. Why is Iran different? —Borgardetalk 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Borgardetalk 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not familiar with the code, so that is not the reason I declined the request. My role is just as an admin proxy to make changes to protected pages. We (admins) get a steady stream of requests at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and we do some basic spot checks. For example: Is the request coherent, is it specific, is it non-controversial. If the answers to all are "yes", we make the change, and head off to the next request. If not, we mark it as not done (sometimes with automated templates, see {{EP}}), and again, move on to the next request. In this particular case, I saw a request, followed by another edit challenging the request. This sets off the "no consensus" flag, so we decline the request and move on. If you think tthat the change is a reasonable one, then just get a couple voices here saying, "Yes, good change" and resubmit the request. Or, try working things out with Nanonic, by following one of the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, perhaps by requesting comments from other editors by posting at WikiProjects. If it develops that there is a consensus in support of the change, then just re-submit the edit request, and then I or another admin will be along to implement it.  :) --Elonka 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The only thing in the code that changes is it allows "Iran=yes" to add assessments to Iran. This is WP:FOOTY's preferred way of sub-project assessment so they don't create their own banners. I was already willing to start the assessment for Iran football which shows you that editors are willing to start it, WP:Iran football already has the page set up so that when the assessment is enabled the page will already update. I don't see why this essentially non-controversial change was declined because the editor above questioned that everything was fine. His questions all had the answers of yes, which does not leave opposition. This has already taken up a lot of my time getting this ready and now it's going to take longer because I have to go through other channels, this is why sub-projects end up creating their own banners because it's simply easier. —Borgardetalk 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Since Borgarde is now a member of the sub-proj, I assume there is a consensus there to enable the assessments so all my questions are answered. So please move Template:Football/sandbox across. Nanonic (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, and thanks very much for your patience.  :) --Elonka 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

yes or Yes

I believe the taskforce parameter values are case sensitive, so for example, England=yes would categorize the talk page, whereas England=Yes would not. Would it be possible to make it case insensitive? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I *think* that requires a change to Template:WPBannerMeta rather than this one. Paulbrock (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, this would be nice if it can. —Borgardetalk 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I was provided with a fix at that page and have updated the code to allow for it. It's all tested and works fine. —Borgardetalk 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


The code is now updated at Template:Football/sandbox to allow for this. Please update. —Borgardetalk 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done --Elonka 05:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Something is wrong, but it maybe just me. Talk:Chris Cohen has England=Yes, and at the bottom of the talk page correctly shows the category Category:GA-Class football in England articles. But when I clicked through to that category (and hit F5), the page isn't listed. Anyone know what may be wrong? --Jameboy (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
See Help:Category#Adding_a_category_by_using_a_template in particular - "Changes to the template, however, may not be reflected immediately on the category page. When you edit an article to add a category tag directly, the list of category members is updated immediately when the page is saved. When a category link is contained in a template, however, this does not happen immediately: instead, whenever a template is edited, all the pages that transclude it are put into the job queue to be recached during periods of low server load. This means that, in busy periods, it may take hours or even days before individual pages are recached and they start to appear in the category list. Performing a null edit to a page will allow it to 'jump the queue' and be immediately recached." HTH Nanonic (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, that would make sense. Cheers for taking the time to explain. --Jameboy (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Is there any way to merge or change the destination category for |infobox-needed? It seems the new template uses Category:Football articles needing infoboxes instead of the pre-existing Category:Articles that need a football biography infobox that was populated by {{needs football biography infobox}}. I guess either could be changed but note that the original is situated within WP:BIOs Category:Sports and games work group articles needing infoboxes. Nanonic (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think I might be going mad here. I suppose it may be wise to keep both formats, since the bio template will populate bios only and the football template can cover clubs and everything else as well. Nanonic (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The wording can always be changed, like add an appropriate infobox and link to the football infoboxes category. I think a general category like you pointed out is a good idea, because there is a lot of club, season, etc articles without infoboxes (which we have ones that can be used). —Borgardetalk 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Persepolis F.C.

Please update the template with the code from Template:Football/sandbox to include the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Persepolis F.C. .Shahin (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran_football enough? Do we really want to have a taskforce/Wikiproject for every big football team? Given that WP Iran Football is only a week old, and has only tagged 80-odd articles I'd oppose a separate set of assessment categories for Persepolis, at least for now. Paulbrock (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Furthermore, although I commend the Persepolis F.C. taskforce for the interest shown in their efforts, I cannot believe that there is much scope within its remit beyond that which WikiProject Iran football already offers. – PeeJay 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment. The project can be added to the banner without assessment, like Irish footy and Non-League do. And if it progresses in the future that the project thinks they need assessment then it can be changed easily by just typing a 'yes' into the code. —Borgardetalk 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My perception is that there are too many task forces and sub-projects for individual clubs, and several of these just seem to create extra admin without adding much value, though I'm probably over-generalising. Peejay, the Manchester United taskforce seems to have produced some very good work recently - do you think having a task force in place has helped to achieve that, or could the same have been done without a task force? I think it is worth pointing out that of the clubs that have reached Featured Topic status (Gillingham, Ipswich Town, York City and Aston Villa), none have a dedicated task force or project purely for that club. --Jameboy (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that having the Manchester United task force in place helped organise efforts towards improving various articles, but I do believe that the work would have been done eventually anyway. There is, however, a bit of a difference between Persepolis and Manchester United, in that Manchester United has a lot more related articles than Persepolis does, and so a task force seemed like a logical thing to implement. – PeeJay 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well Iran footy is still new, (I'm waiting for a bot to tag the articles for me - shouldn't be long..), I honestly don't believe individual club ones are essential either. But different editors like different things. I'm not against anything at a country level though because there is a lot to work on in each country compared to a club. (Just a note as well, administratively this template is a lot easier to add task forces than it used to be.)—Borgardetalk 12:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why the football box on this talkpage is not nested? King of the North East 20:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Because nesting in templates is not designed to work outside of a bannershell - either {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}}. Nanonic (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)