Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Working out guidelines for season articles

This would be the primary goal for now, as there is currently no such thing in place. As a consequence, content and layout of those articles vary on a huge scale.

I have thought about something for league seasons quite some time ago. The ensuing discussion, however, centered mainly around the colors used in the league tables only, although there are much more parts which make up a good league article, e.g. a good introduction, sufficient information about the participants and, if differing from the standard round-robin mode, the competition rules, and so on and so forth.

Cup season articles definitely need a guideline for them, as the number of variations is even greater than for league season articles. There are multiple layouts in use, from using Footballbox over simple tables to all kinds of layouts, which makes it hard to get a quick overview. It would be good to determine a standard here, possibly based on the number of teams in a round and the accessibility of information.

Team season articles, well... to be honest, this is not exactly my business, but we will hopefully have someone who could give a quick overview for those.

So, to get things started - opinions, comments, working preferences, ... ? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

League season articles

I think that the more recent Premier League season articles are a good starting point for this. However, I think that these articles rely far too heavily on tables of data. Does a reader really need to know what the capacity of each Premier League ground is? What is the relevance of mentioning the specific details of each club's kits for the season? At the bare minimum we need the league table, the results grid and a list of the top scorers, with season stats, managerial changes and a prose account of the season optional. – Pee Jay 09:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the capacities should be mentioned if they can be sourced (see nearly any of the Fußball-Bundesliga season articles). Including kit details other than kit makers and sponsors seems irrelevant to me as well.

Regarding the season stats - isn't having a note who scored the first goal of the season or similar information technically a violation of WP:NOT#STATS?

I would use something similar like Fußball-Bundesliga 2000–01 as a starting point, pimped up with a list of managerial changes under the map and stadia and minus the "Champion squad" section. Also not necessary are listings of current managers, team captains or club chairmans (see Süper Lig 2008–09). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: Introducing a table with a sentence or two, as seen in Fußball-Bundesliga 2009–10, would not hurt either. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like some suggestions on what is currently thought of some of the Latin American season articles (specifically those in CONMEBOL), especially those with an Apertura and Clausura championship. I would like to model for future articles of those kinds of league to be Primera División Argentina 2009–10.

Then within that region there are the leaguse that have multiple stages, but one single-season champion. I would like the model to be Campeonato Ecuatoriano de Fútbol Serie A 2009 since that is the league that I update and follow the most.

I think we should also continue moving the year in front in the article title, such as how the current Premier League season is.Digirami (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(Re: Soccer-holic) I just don't see what benefits the list of stadia has. If a user wants to know what stadium a team plays at, they should look at that team's article. I suppose, in the rare event that a team spends a season at a ground that is not their own (as Fulham did while Craven Cottage was being refurbished), that would be worth mentioning, but the names and capacities of each ground is unnecessary IMO.

You are perhaps right that an indiscriminate list of stats would violate WP:NOT#STATS, but if particular stats are relevant then they would certainly warrant a mention, especially if they can be sourced.

The Fußball-Bundesliga 2000–01 article is definitely a good starting point, and your suggestions for modifications are good ones. Can I also request that we do away with those pointless templates that are so often used to create the league tables and results grids? We got along fine with standard tables for so long before the templates came along, after all! – Pee Jay 14:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the idea of listing stadiums because teams do change stadiums and it would be useful to know where a team played at home during any particular season. But, listing the capacities is a bit much and is just fluff.

As for the templates, I like them, especially the league table one. Compared to the other templates ClaudioMB created, that one is actually simple to use. It there is anything wrong with that set of templates, I think it would be the "Qualification or relegation" column. Perhaps using the templates for a league table (sans that Q/R column) and pair it with a color-coded key is enough... again, perhaps. Digirami (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree up to a certain degree that the league and results tables are pretty much the only useful temps which have been created in this series. However, those only work well for a more or less closed set of teams where few changes happen in naming and/or league composition like in England, France or Germany. A notable counter-example is Slovak Superliga 2009–10. We had several name changes here, and all was topped by the controversy surrounding FK Senica, who took over the license of promotees FK Inter Bratislava (for details, read the Extraliga article). In any case, this resulted in using custom code for the results table and a couple of alternative fb cl implementations (which were already present) for the league table. Could this code probably be a basis for an alternative? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, first of all I'd like to thank Soccer-holic for inviting me to join this task force. As for suggestions and ideas, here's a few thoughts and questions. I agree that the tables listing managers, club captains and chairmen are an overkill, but I think an overview of stadia used in a particular season is useful, along with their capacities, provided they can be properly sourced. As for league and results tables, I think the templates currently in use are fine, although the comments section describing which stage and European competition a certain club has qualified for could do with some redesign as it seems like a waste of space with the comments section taking up approx 30-40 percent of the whole table's width. The head-to-head records in leagues which use this method also look kind of awkward. Now, I have a question regarding European competitions, or more specifically - should we include European records section at season articles, such as in the 2008–09 Prva HNL article? The issue was raised recently at WP Football and I think most people were not entirely against it, although there were different ideas on how this should be formatted. Now i know some editors will say that this type of information belongs to articles such as 2008–09 in Croatian football, but I'm not entirely sure if we would be doing the reader a favour by creating tons of such articles for countries with smaller leagues. Which brings us to an important point - as not all guidelines are applicable to all countries and sourcing is far more limited for leagues outside the top five and English-speaking leagues, and the very styles of almanacs differ from country to country (for instance, it was customary for Yugoslav almanacs to include champion squads (which are useful in my opinion) with appearance and goals stats (like here) and the appearances and club records of clubs from this region usually include all appearances and goals a player has scored in his career with the club - even in friendlies - without separating stats for different competitions or making the distinction between starting a game and coming on as a sub). Also, as far as the top goalscorers' list is concerned, some countries take into account how many penalties a player has scored when determining the top scorer, and some not. Long story short, creating guidelines is great but let's keep in mind that not everything applicable to the Premier league can be applied to everyone else and that we shouldn't dismiss potentially useful information just because it doesn't fit into the format created for leagues with much better coverage in the English-speaking media. On the other hand, some universal guidelines for formatting items which are bound to be included in every season article would be very useful (for instance, the top scorers table can look like this, like this or like this). And on a side note - some leagues organise futsal tournaments open to premier division clubs which is regularly held in closed arenas during the winter break. Is this note-worthy material Timbouctou (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's a looot of text to go through - and exactly the input we need. In order to get more specific input on the respective league article topics, I will create subsections for those right under this entry.

As for the domestic futsal or indoor soccer tournaments, these can definitely be mentioned in the national season articles, especially if they are official competitions. However, I would ask someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taskforce on Association Football variants on their notability criteria for such tournaments before making a suggestion for stand-alone season articles. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE – I have tried to apply the format changes discussed below on a concrete article; the result can be found in User:Soccer-holic/Sandbox2. I have attached comments which are displayed in Italics. The base of the article is Cypriot First Division 2008–09, by the way, in the case if you want to compare. You may also correct and/or change anything you think which is not in line. :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction, changes from last season and team overview sections

The first parts of a league season article should give a good introduction on the respective season. These are my thoughts on the contents of these sections:

Introduction: Probably the least controversial section. Anything containing the year, competition, number of season (e.g. "18th season since its introduction" or "104th season of top-tier football in Absurdistan"), begin and end dates and (if possible) defending champions should be good. Further, the use of an infobox, usually placed on the upper-most right-hand side, is encouraged.

Changes from <year of last season>: This section usually contains (if available) the teams who have left the league after the last season and their replacements. Mentioning should be done either prose (see here) or as a list. If these are the only changes, the section can also be named "Team changes from...". If there are also any structural or other changes to the league, such as a reduction of the number of teams or changes in the allocation of international qualification spots, the section should be structured like this.

Season overview: This optional section contains a short overview about the final league results such as champions, international qualificants and relegated teams or otherwise noteworthy incidents. If added, it should follow upon the "Changes" section.

Team overview: This section should contain the following:
- A subsection called "Stadia and locations" containing a sortable wikitable and a map. The table contains the teams of the league, the city or area and the occupied stadiums. Stadium capacities can also be included as those can vary through the years, but only if those can be reliably sourced. The map depicts the location of the home stadiums of the teams and is usually placed on the right or on top of the section, depending on the shape of the country.
- A subsection called "Managerial changes" where every managerial change made during the season is listed.

The "Team overview" section should NOT contain a list of any current personnel (managers/head coaches, team captains, chairmans) or any list of kit details, as those are usually of very little use in a league article and also difficult to be reliably sourced. If information on those items is available after all, it should go into the respective club season articles of the year in question.

Thoughts, ideas, comments? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems fine and dandy, especially the section on team overview. I agree it should be the simple, basic info about the team that season. But I think that team changes should/could go into the Team Overview section. It keeps everything about the teams in one section. The "Changes" section could be better used for rules or format changes from the previous season. Digirami (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that it's about putting all text together. For example, you have English Premier League where you have 20 clubs, and it's more difficult to spot those changes written right next to/under the gigantic table. IMO it's more appealing to have one all-text-section and one map-and-table-section.

One other thing. This "Season overview" section could also contain things like "Arsenal had a huge winning streak of 10 games in a row", or "Liverpool held a top position for the whole season", or some notable ups and downs in a table during the season (like Tottenham's in the 2008-09 Premier League). Actually, overview of things going on during the season. However, I would definitely make this section completely optional, because it can be properly sourced, and with enough people interested in writing it, in no more 10 leagues. I mean, can anyone here write that season overview for Georgian or Armenian league? I doubt it. Yes, there are also things that Soccer-holic mentioned that can be seen from the league table, but I think that this section doesn't make sense only to write international qualifications and relegated teams. Therefore, either do it the right way (5-10 aforementioned sentences, as well as champions, international qualifications, relegated teams etc.) or don't do it at all. SonjiCeli (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

League table and results table sections

While the introductory sections are the least controversial, the league table and results sections definitely are quite the opposite. This is largely due to the use of fb template series, which have both their benefits and drawbacks at the same time. The specific templates used here are anything labelled "Fb cl..." for league tables and "Fb r" for results tables."

Benefits of the templates are a unified layout, a simplified editing behavior in comparison to a conventional wikitable in most cases, and a unified naming approach for each team.

Disadvantages of the templates are the inflexibility on frequent changes in team names (basically, each name change for a team leads to the creation of a new team template, which eventually results in a cluttered heap of seldomly used templates and thus a violation of WP:TMP), the seldom use of domestic competition templates (same consequences as for the team templates) and a delay in article display because of the transclusion of multiple templates.

Now, the basic question is if we want to continue using the current set of templates, introduce a modified version of those templates (which should use standard wiki markup for teams and, if available, competitions) or if we switch "back" to conventional wikitables. We do not need to discuss any specific design issues of these (important) sections before a decision on this has been made. Thoughts, ideas? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I like the templates. The set of templates in question are simple, easy to use, and keeps everything looking the same.

Teams do not change names that often. If one template has to be made to reflect a new name change, so be it. A team template keeps the (short) name of a team consistent. Take my favorite team, Liga Deportiva Universitaria de Quito, for example. They have a number of short versions of their name which are used officially and in the press (such as LDU Quito, LDU de Quito, Liga de Quito, LDU (Q), Liga, LDU, LDU (Quito), and any of those version where L.D.U. can be used instead of LDU), but only one (LDU Quito) is the basic accepted short version of the club's name. It would be bad if there were a bunch of season articles, in which my team takes part, and there are 5+ versions its name within them (and there are 6 LDUs in Ecuador). The team templates makes sure there is just one short name in use. Digirami (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier - templates are great as they are, except the section describing qualification for European competitions and the design of the optional head-to-head records. It just doesn't seem practical to me, perhaps just colouring clubs' names and addid a small Key could make it look better, and as for head-to-head records these could be indicated by superscript and mentioned in notes below the table. Timbouctou (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted this comment at WT:FOOTY as I was unaware of this discussion. I've now copied my comment here:

I was looking at the fb templates that are used to create league tables (and other types of tables) in some articles. While the idea seems a good one (to standardise league tables and make it easier to create them), the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. I say this with all due respect to the creator(s), as my knowledge of template syntax is extremely limited, but it is more the overall structure than the low-level coding that I have an issue with. Templates are supposed to make things easier, but when you have to create and maintain thousands of templates such as Template:Fb round2 2009-10 UCL PO and Template:Fb team Beaconsfield SYCOB, there is something badly wrong. If we are to use such a template system, then we should get some template experts to properly parameterise it so it isn't so unwieldy. Until then, if I create a league table in an article I am working on, I will be using a wikitable. In summary, I think the template system needs to be substantially re-worked before we can adopt it as a standard. --Jameboy (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many. This is especially the case with the templates created for competitions and round! There are two sets of them! User:ClaudioMB thought it would be great to improve one of the codes used the league table (the qualification template). But instead of fixing it, he created a new one that runs on a new set of competition and round templates. So essentially there are twice as many of those templates! I understand that changing parameters in a template can cause a disaster in pages that already use them, but how drastic of a change could they have been? We need to do something to simply and streamline the template system. We can start by agreeing which templates should definitely be used, and discuss anyways in which they might need improvement. And what ever ones we do not need, we delete them. Digirami (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... For league tables, we have two header templates (one with competition column, one without competition column), two row templates (one using team temps, one using wikimarkup for teams, each available in a 3-point and a 2-point version), one footer template, three competition templates (v1 (deprecated), v2 and v3) and one head-to-head template (which has its problems in use). All of those are interchangeable.

For results tables, we have two header templates (one using separate temps for abbreviations (deprecated), one using abbs built into the team templates), one row header and multiple instances of results cell in order to build the body rows and one footer template.

We further have a vast collection of team templates (sorted by country), competition templates and round templates.

The templates listed above are those used for league season articles; the whole set of templates can be found in Category:Fb templates. Warning: Most of these have little until no documentation. It would definitely be worth a barnstar if someone goes out and tries to determine the actual use and the usefulness of all those templates.

I am currently building league tables by using Template:Fb cl header as a header and Template:Fb cl footer as the standard footer. For the "inlay", it depends on the league. If a sufficient amount of team templates is available, Template:Fb cl team is the preferred weapon of choice, otherwise Template:Fb cl2 team (the one which uses wiki markup) is used. For competitions, I nowadays almost always use Template:Fb cl3 qr as this is capable of using wiki markup as well. The only exception to this rule is for UEFA Champions League or Europa League spots; these are used in a lot of places and therefore have a certain right to exist.

For results tables, we are still stuck with the set we have. I would like to see something which uses the current template structure, but nevertheless is capable of carrying wiki markup.

Regarding parameter naming – there definitely is room for improvement in that section. Some abbreviations are just too cryptic. So, to sum it all up, lots of templates with partially significant flows. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Your last statement hit it on the mark. But some of the parameters are easy. "w" for a win, etc, doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand or use.

And apparently, there are two version of the league table without the qualification column (Template:Fb cl-non header and Template:Fb cl2 header). We have found redundancy (and I'm sure there is more). The only difference is that "Fb cl-non header" has tooltips in place, and the other does not. I suggest with delete Fb cl2 header.

But one thing I didn't understand is the qualification templates. It was originally Template:Fb cl qr, and it used "Fb round" and "Fb competition" templates. So we created a bunch of templates for "Fb round" and "Fb competition" to make "Fb cl qr" work. But something happened (god knows what since there is no talk page). So Template:Fb cl2 qr was created to fix/improve/whatever (again I don't have that answer), and it uses "Fb round2" and "Fb competition2" templates. So again, we have tons of "Fb round2" and "Fb competition2" templates that are essentially the same as their previous version. And ther crazy thing is, whatever problems there was, I'm positive it was easily fixable without creating another set of templates. To prove it, I improved "Fb cl qr" to the point where the code is the same as "Fb cl2 qr" (but it doesn't use "Fb round2" templates) and it has more features.

It just seems that if, or whenever, there is a problem with a template in Fb templates, we do not try to fix it but rather we just make another one instead. It seems pointless. Granted, that when changes happen in a template, chaos can happen. But there are enough editors in this WikiProject to correct that chaos. Digirami (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistics in general, goalscoring tables in particular

This part of the league season article is probably the most sensitive part in terms of WP:NOT#IINFO, as it bears thousands of inclusion possibilities on all kind of stats.

Definitely a must (if data available, that is) is a "Top goalscorers" section. It should contain the best ten scorers plus the players who have an equal numbers of goal as the #10 scorer. The format of this section, however, can be discussed. We should agree upon one of the two formats present at current articles and consistently use it through all articles.

My personal preferrance would be a list (similar to those used here or here) because the represented data is rather simple and WP:TABLE suggests the use of a list in this case. Also, any leagues which use the number of penalty goals as a tie breaker could be handled like this.

An alternative formatting could be the use of a table similar to here. If necessary, penalty goals would be enclosed in brackets next to the number of total goals of a player.

On the other hand, lists similar to this one should be avoided because of the amount of data and because of possible inconsistencies between multiple sources. Goal averages per match should be rather included into the infobox of a league than into this section as the template automatically calculates the number when feeded with matches played and total goals scored.

A list of the best assistants as in here can optionally be added as well if a reliable source is available. If added, it should use the same formatting as the goalscorers list.

Statistics such as "First goal of a season" should only be included if they can be properly sourced. Since one can add all possible facts here, we should agree upon a finite set of stats.

These are my ideas for the section. Any comments, ideas, complaints? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, I personally think the table as the one used for Premier League articles looks better, but the list is also fine by me and I agree that the table like the one used in Ligue 1 articles (with totals and averages) looks a bit cluttered. However, we still need to figure out a nice way of presenting data about players who changed clubs during season. Of course all stats should be properly sourced, but I guess details such as first goal of the season, first card of the season and such will be much more readily available for leagues with better media coverage. In fact all the stats listed here are fine by me. What about lists of hat-tricks like here or here? Timbouctou (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree with using lists instead than tables, I actually pushed more than once for that solution due to its easier manageability, and also due to accessibility issues. About "Top assistant", the reliable sources to be provided should come only from the league itself. First goal, first card, first thing around in the season are instead only WP:TRIVIA at my eyes, and therefore not worth of inclusion anywhere; same for hat-tricks and lists of club sponsors and manufacturers. --Angelo (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Bottom sections and templates

These sections usually contain any official awards handed out by the league or similar honors given out by the media, the standard "See also", "References" and "External links" sections, the bottom navigational templates and Category/Interwiki stuff.

Any award should be accompanied by a source. Only the most important awards should be listed. For example, it is okay to list a specific player or team of the year. The inclusion of player/coach of the month awards is also okay. Anything which goes above that, e.g. "Teams of the week" as in here should be not allowed.

The "See also" section should contain wikilinks to season articles (excluding club articles) related to the competition. Alternatively, a template named "xxxx in Fooian football" can be used.

"References" usually contains the collected sources of an article. A source is usually added to the referenced item via the <ref> and </ref> tags; the use of the {{cite}} template is encouraged. The sources are then listed by using {{Reflist}}. Any given source should only be listed once. If multiple items rely on the same source, the "name" parameter should be used within the ref tag.

"External links" should contain a link to the official website of the competition. If there is a trustable and reliable source for the league (e.g. the BBC website for the Premier Leagues in the United Kingdom), it may also be added.

The external links are followed by a set of navigational templates, wrapped in {{fb start}} and {{fb end}}. The listing should apply "from near to far"; see here for an example.

The article is eventually concluded with the appropriate categories and interwiki links. For league articles, categories usually include "Category:xxxx domestic football (soccer) leagues", "xxxx in <Country of the league>" (note that seasons in the xxxx-yy add one category for each year here) and, if available, further country or competition specific categories. Any interwiki links should only contain existing articles on the same article at other-language wikis.

Comments, thoughts? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I realized we forgot to discuss one feature of the season articles: the infobox. For the most part, it is easy and consistent all-around. But I think the the parts that discuss who qualifies to international tournaments, who highest scoring / biggest loss/win, and the streaks are usually written in severl different ways. If anyone thinks all infoboxes for all league season articles should be consistent, voice your opinions/thoughts here. Digirami (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is a part of the introduction section. And yes, I think that it definitely should be a part of the season article. However, I haven't noticed different ways in which they are written. It's one of the things that are pretty much consistent throughout all season articles (at least the European ones). The only things that may be inconsistent are the wins/losses streaks and highest/lowest/average attendances written. They are usually written only in the top leagues plus 2-3 others. That is due to lack of sources in most leagues. Sources are also the reason why some biggest home/away losses and some other stuff have dates in brackets, and some don't. However, these things (streaks and attendances, dates) are the only stuff that aren't the same everywhere. And imho they aren't "inconsistent" with other countries' league articles, it's just the matter of sources; if you have the sources (and rarely you do), you write it. SonjiCeli (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Digirami was rather referring to the way the participants for the European tournaments and the top goalscorer(s) are being displayed. Some infoboxes add the rounds to each qualified team, some don't. Some infoboxes display the flag(s) of the leading goalscorer(s), some don't. Since the box is very limited in space, I would suggest that only the names of the European qualificants, without any round attached, are being displayed; it would ideally be one team per line. A similar approach could be made for goalscorers: Only the name is displayed, with goals in brackets; the flag (which is illegal anyway per WP:MOSFLAG - do not decorate), club and any other unnecessary detail is left out. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind stating which rounds a team qualifies to. But I would sugget displaying them like this:

Group Stage:
Yada United
Blabla
Preliminary Round:
West Ditto

...instead of like this

Yada United (group stage)
West Ditto (preliminary round)

It takes more space up and down, but not width wise, which is ok by me.

And on the display of goalscorers, I agree. Digirami (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

National football team ####

What are we to do with the articles created to cover a national team's results in a year (like Ecuador national football team 2004)? Merge them into a country's season article since national teams don't technically have seasons, but just play matches within a year? Digirami (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely merge them. Ecuador national football team 2004 should be merged into 2004 in Ecuadorian football, which would obviously follow the model of the articles in Category:Seasons in Ecuadorian football. – Pee Jay 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they definitely should be merged. Any users which continuosly create those articles should also be given a heads up on that matter. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I to assume that we should delete the statistics and line-up found in some of those national team articles, such as in Ecuador national football team 1991, when we redirect/rename those articles? Digirami (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say so. Friendly matches aren't notable, and the qualifying matches aren't notable enough for line-ups in the qualifying-specific articles so obviously there's no need to retain them in the country-specific articles. – Pee Jay 22:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also agree to that. In order to rename, we would need some league-specific material in those articles, though, as I fear that a simple article renaming could cause a move warring about the name of the article. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been working on the Ecuador ones, converting them to year in review articles with info from the national leagues results and clubs in participation in international tournaments table. It's a tedious process, but it'll get done. Digirami (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(reindent)Ok, now that I redirected all of Ecuador's national team year article to a year in review article on Ecuadorian football, this template (Template:Ecuador NFT results) is now replaced by Template: Seasons in Ecuadorian football. How do I get that first template deleted?

Secondly, User:Darius Dhlomo is possibly hell bent on reverting my edits. I would like some help with him should he try to revert "#### in Ecuadorian football" articles back to "Ecuador national football ####" articles. He has already tried once, but hopefully a little (angry) message on his talk page from me warned him sufficiently. Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Recruiting new members

On a completely different note - we are still running low on participants. Does anybody know a good and quick way how to recruit members without cluttering zillions of talk pages? Personally, I would like to have a parameter added to the banner seen on WP:FOOTY related talk pages, but the source code of this is protected. Further, are there any additional requirements needed when requesting a code addition to the banner?--Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On a second note - how about this invitiational template for interested users?

That could work. Digirami (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey just wanted to let you know that your message was the best way to contact new participants...It got me interested anyway, I just added myself to the list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Season article task force page, hopefully that was the right thing to do, if you have to approve me entering the group, please let me know. thanks Chagousa (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of joining. So how would I join? --MicroX (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here. Welcome! Digirami (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And then you can help by leaving constructive comments and opinions like the rest of us have. Digirami (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

If a player in a game receives two yellow cards, resulting in a red - what cards should be noted in the statistics table? --Jimbo^[online] 08:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

From a referee's (and thus personal) point of view, I would record one yellow and one "yellow-red". The reason for this is that if competitions have suspensions for accumulated yellow cards, the first yellow is not nullified when the player receives his second booking. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, forget what I just said. Just record the second yellow, but not the first one. The ejection supersedes the booking. The same goes if a player who has been booked before is shown a straight red card. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In that situation, I usually record two yellows and a red, since the player was shown all three cards. If, however, the sending-off was not immediately preceded by a yellow card, but the player had already been booked, I would then only record one yellow and one red. – Pee Jay 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cards are cards, and ejection is ejection. What the referee shows? 2 yellows? 1 yellow & 1 red? It can be 3 columns: Y|YY|R or Y|R|E--Thpanagos (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Third Division 2009–10

Just wondering if someone could make Scottish Third Division 2009–10 look like the previous season's article, as I'm not that active anymore and I got confused :( Thank you. SummerHoliday 19:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:La Liga 2008-09 and Template:La Liga 2009-10

Those templates are basically either an exact copy of {{La Liga teamlist}} (2009-10 template) or differ in having linked two (guess which two) club seasons among the general club links (2008-09 template). It is okay to have season templates if a clear majority of teams on one of those is linked with their respective season articles. However, since this isn't the case, the templates should go to TfD. If there are no objections, I will do so later today. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction: The 2009-10 template is just a redirect to the general teamlist. However, we also have a 2005-06 and a 2007-08 version of those, with exactly the same pattern. One could possibly argue about the use of these on the respective club season pages with only the teams in question linked, but then again, a template with two links does not make much sense.--Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Until we have full sets of articles about each club's seasons, there is no point having navboxes to link them. The only navboxes of this sort that should currently exist are ones to link clubs that currently play in each division. – Pee Jay 14:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

European Competitions Article Section

Recently, I have been adding a European Competitions section to league articles. Soccer-holic and I came up with a format for these sections last night, as displayed [1]. Should these sections be included in the articles and if so, should the format of these sections be altered? Rougue1987 (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this is appropriate for league articles. These sections would certainly be appropriate for, for example, 2009–10 in English football, but not for 2009–10 Premier League. – Pee Jay 12:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Serie A 2009–10 should cover only Serie A itself, not competitions which are not part of it, so I fully agree with PeeJay. --Angelo (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I third it. Digirami (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Club season articles

I think we need to set out some guidelines for the club season articles, particularly as a section has now been added to the Template:2009-10 in English football displaying all the club articles that have been created. Each of the articles seems to follow a different format, e.g. this, this and this. I think this should be one of the first tasks for out taskforce. 03 md 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Call me biased if you want, but I truly think that the Manchester United season article style is the best out of the three you linked to. The Wigan article doesn't seem that conducive to the addition of prose, and there's definitely no need to have the entire league table in the article. I also think that the lists of results contain too much info: I mean, I think that listing the opposition's goalscorers and yellow cards is a bit much, and even your own team's yellow cards might be pushing it. The Wigan article could also do with a section for transfers and statistics. The Spurs article, on the other hand, flip-flops far too much. Content should be grouped in some way or another, whether it is by competition or by the type of content (i.e. results/tables/stats), but the Spurs article flits from one to the other and back again before you know what hit you! Furthermore, there are many stylistic issues with the Spurs article, not least the colour of the table column headers. The author should be commended for making the article a bit more club-centric, but changing the colours is probably contrary to WP:ACCESS, as people may struggle to read it. There is also no need for a squad list when there is a squad stats table in the article, and the "Starting XI" section is completely unencyclopaedic, and probably fails WP:OR too! I'm not saying the Man Utd article is perfect, and there are a few features from the Wigan and Spurs articles that I would add to it, but it's certainly the best of the three, in my opinion. – Pee Jay 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Club season articles are usually not my cup of coffee, but I agree that those are in dire need of a guideline. If you need more articles for getting suitable ideas, go to Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2009 season and Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2009-10 season and take a look at some of them. Another approach would be to go through most of those articles and identify the most common sections.

As for the Wigan article and it's collapsible football boxes, listing every card given is definitely over the edge, but the opponents goalscorers should stay for completeness purposes; however, this is just my two cents. In general, the collapsibles should be the primary choice if any single match reports (formatted similar to those being found in cup articles) are to be included as they are superior over their {{fb match}} counterparts. Speaking of those (and being well aware of the risk that PeeJay might throw everything but the kitchen sink after me for this proposal ;-) ), please check Category:Fb templates for possibly useful templates. Note: This does not imply that any of those will eventually be used; it is rather an assumption of good faith in the contents of this category.

Finally, approach some of the current season article contributors from both English and non-English clubs and head for their opinions as well. You can never get enough input when starting to build a guideline from scratch. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Of the ones I've seen so far, I personally prefer the Bayern Munich or Manchester United articles. Just from a readers perspective, they cover all the pertinent information I can think of without being excesive (except maybe the kits section in the case of FC Bayern). I particularly like the way the Bayern article uses the format that is used in competition main articles. In my opinion, the best approach will ultimately be to take the best aspects from the various articles that already exist to create one unifrom standard. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Soccer-Holic. Having done most of the Bayern season articles I'm a bit biased, too, but Manchester and Bayern seem to be good albeit quite different in style. If you take a look at the Bayern seasonal articles you should take a look at the 2008–09 season as well. The 2009–10 article is not yet very refined mostly due to the fact that it is still quite early in the season.

Mostly I'm wondering whether a club season article should have a coverage of the events by month or something alike. You can see this done in the 2008–09 Bayern season article. I have not yet started that in 2009–10 yet and actually I'm not quite sure anymore that it is a good idea. Doing this last season it felt a bit tedious and it seemed to add more words than depth to the article. OdinFK (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to throw my favorite club's season article into the mix. I think the way I have organized the 2009 LDU Quito season article, especially in regards to how the matches and competitions are handled, is very good way of display that information. I think the overall design and strcuture is good, but I'm seriously considering replacing the squad templates once I find a suitable alternative.

One thing I do want to say is that club season articles should not be a page on statistics and results. Some prose HAS to be incorporated into the article. I look at how a non-football related articles are done (like my hometeam the Miami Dolphins) and think that it is great how the article actually discusses what happened in the season in words, instead in stats like this one. Digirami (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely something to be said for telling the "story of the season" on a monthly basis, with no splits by competition. However, when you start splitting results by competition, telling the story of the season by month starts to make less sense to me. With relation to the Bayern Munich articles, I still don't like the idea of the "Starting XI" section as it is riddled with OR. I'm not even a fan of the Assists section, but if that is a common statistic used in the Bundesliga, then fair enough. I would also suggest that the goals and bookings sections be merged into the main stats table.

As for the LDU Quito article, I'm sorry to say that I think it's a bit too full of tables. The squad and transfers tables are also far too dependent on icons representing which transfer window the transfer occurred in and whether the player is EU registered or not (not sure why that's in an article about a South American club, by the way!). As I've already said, I don't think it's necessary to have a squad list and then a squad stats table, since the stats table lists the club squad anyway. Then there's the round-by-round league position summary, which a lot of people have said constitutes OR, especially when fixtures have been postponed, etc. And then there's the summary of the competitions, which is redundant to the infobox. Again, there are other problems, but there are also positive aspects to the article. – Pee Jay 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done a lot of work on the Fulham articles for 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons and have become much happier with the style in the latter, but collapsible boxes are also an advantage. I agree with PeeJay that the United articles are a good template for how season articles should look, and the 2009-10 Fulham article is fairly similar apart from the fact that I list opposition goalscorers in the results table. 03 md 20:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) Ya I figured someone would say something about the tables and squad statistics. But, if you really look at some of the other alternative examples here, I probably have about the same amount of tables, or less since I don't have a starting XI table, an injured list, or any complete league tables (and LDU Quito's league is divided into stages, so imagine all those tables). I'm trying to find a better alternative for some of the tables, but there are a lot of options and I haven't decided which one yet. For example, a week ago I changed the way the results of the matches were displayed. :What I wanted people to notice about the article was the overall structure and organization, which the opposite of how the Bayern Munich article is organized. Squad and club information, from transfers to any season statistics, should come first. This information should be followed by a "Competative Review" section, which would discuss the team's competitive results in their competitions. And in that section, you should have a summary of what happened to the team in the competition, despite an infobox. The infobox only provided the end result. The summary tells what happened to get to that end result. Month by month seems like bad idea, especially when so much can happen in one month in so many competitions for a football team. Splitting by competition is easier, especially once you start writing about what happened. Digirami (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Transfer table

While we can spend little time talking structure (since it simply choosing between two basic proposals), I would also like to dedicate some time talking about to best format for the tables. I'm seriously not sold on any one. I'll save the initial design of a table till later since it all depends on what information is displayed. So that's the first step: player information. Essentially there are no more than 4 needs for a table to cover any stats of info on a player: transfers, season appearance, season scoring, and discipline (and maybe complete squad information). Anything else is probably filler. Let's start with transfers. We can all agree the basic info needed for a transfer table is player name, old/new club (depends if it is in or out), nationality, and type of transfer. There are other info that can be used: age at transfer, transfer winner, and maybe position. Once we establish what is pertinent info, one of us can design an appropriate table. Digirami (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say that definite requirements for a table of transfers is the date that the transfer took place, the player's name and the fee. Other desirable info would be the player's position and nationality, but this shouldn't be essential. Age at transfer is probably a bit pointless, and I'm not sure what you mean by "transfer winner". I also think that separate tables are required for transfers and loans, both in and out. In the loan tables, the transfer fee can be replaced by the loan end date. See the Manchester United season articles for examples. – Pee Jay 22:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I created an indent here above Digirami's last comment because we're branching into a specific topic. I agree with PJ. Two separate table for transfers and loans would be best. PJ, were you saying two separate tables for loans out and loans in to go along with a third that covers transfers (both in and out)? Name, nationality, and date are necessary for both tables. The "fee" would be useful on the transfers table. I also think a "new destination/original club" field of some sort would be useful to cover loans going out/in. Also, I've been contributing rather heavily to Everton's current season article -- there's some stuff in there that I didn't add and don't necessarily like, but I don't want to be a dick and delete everything that the IPs add -- and feedback is appreciated. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually saying that we should have four tables, similar to the Man Utd seasons articles: transfers in, transfers out, loans in and loans out. – Pee Jay 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I follow. I think that's what a lot of the articles already have anyway, but it's good to nail down a consensus. On a related note, what players should be added to/included on the lists? For example, every year there are a number of youth/academy/second team players who are released, especially from the bigger clubs. Should they be noted on the "transfers out" list? I would say that they should because they may move on to another club and achieve notability. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's tough to call. I think any player that was on a professional contract with the club should be listed, but if they were just trainees, then maybe they shouldn't. After all, some kids get picked up by a club at age 8 and are then released before they even make it to the club's youth teams. So yeah, I think the cut-off point should be whether or not the player had a pro contract. – Pee Jay 17:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Abdul Qayyum Ahmad

This guy has just taken it upon himself to add kit tables to the early Premier League season articles. As I recall, we agreed above that such tables should not be included in future season articles, so what should be done about this recent action? – Pee Jay 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Just revert it. He made the same for Serie A articles as well, by the way. --Angelo (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. – Pee Jay 07:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Obviously there are no clear guidelines/criteria on such aritcles, and so I was wondering at what stage/level on a national pyramid would a season article not be deemed notable? Or would it simply be a case of following WP:N, and as long as there are enough relevant references on items their notability would be confirmed? Prior to this season there have been season articles on teams in the lower than the fifth tier of the English pyramid, in regional leagues. --Jimbo^[online] 22:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that at the very least the club must be professional during the season which the article is about. Not amateur. Not semi-professional. Maybe we can build more criteria from here. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a new issue here. An English Conference South club now has its own season article, Weymouth F.C. season 2009–10. The fact that someone made this article by copy-and-past aside, this can't be notable, right? The sixth tier of English football? The club's own timeline shows that "Weymouth adopt full time professionalism on 3 July 2005".[2] In the meantime I'm going to add them to {{2009–10 in English football}}. Maybe we should nail down that "who's season is notable" question. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that only professional teams that play at a national level (i.e. not regionalised like the Conference South) should have season articles. In England, this would currently include some teams that play in the Conference National, but obviously not all of them. I would also suggest that any season spent in the Football League, whether in the First Division or the Fourth Division, should be covered by an article, regardless of the club's professional status. – Pee Jay 13:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PeeJay, making sense again. I agree. So is this a criteria that a few more people would like to chime in about?

Fully professional during the season that the article is about.
Playing in a nation-wide league competition.

Do we want any more criteria? Any well-defined exceptions to the rule? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What about season articles for the early seasons of teams like Man United, which exist....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Where does the project stand on season articles for amateur / semi-pro teams who later went on to enter a professional league, such as the oft-quoted Black Arabs F.C. season 1883–84? Bettia (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, what Chris said... Bettia (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that a Premier League/Football League club's first season would be notable just for being their very first season...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can understand that line of thought, I don't quite understand the existence of Black Arabs F.C. season 1883–84. The team didn't play any competitive matches that season, and there's nothing particularly remarkable about the season other than that it was the first in the history of Bristol Rovers. Like I said in the Gateshead F.C. season 2006–07 AfD, I was actually considering nominating the earliest Newton Heath L&YR F.C. seasons for deletion on the basis that the club wasn't playing at a national level at the time. The big difference, though, between Black Arabs F.C. season 1883–84 and Newton Heath L&YR F.C. season 1883–84 is that Newton Heath actually played in a competitive match that season, as well as some friendlies that I didn't think were worth mentioning when I wrote the article. – Pee Jay 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, if we're talking notability of articles about a sporting season, then surely the criteria have to be sport-related, not dependent on how the club is organised financially. If the chosen level for notability is teams playing at a national level, then I'm afraid I can't see the argument for discriminating against some teams playing at that level - in the same competition, in the same season, with the same media coverage, and the same availability of reliable sourcing - just because some of the players for those teams might not be full-time professional footballers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of creating articles about the early years of Southampton, when they were in the Southern League, starting with the eight-year spell when they won the league six times and reached the FA Cup Final in the other two years, with several international players on their books. Reading the above, it seems that these articles would fail an AfD on the grounds that the Southern League was not a nation-wide league competition, even though (at that time) it was broadly equivalent to the Third Division in status. Before I put any energy into this, I would be grateful for your opinion as to whether or not I should carry on. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does become tricky when teams, as many likely do and have done, have seasons that flow in and out of fully-professional and/or nation-wide leagues. Do we want teams with a history of seasons where some of those seasons are considered to be "not notable"? Possibly. Do we want all seasons of any team who was ever professional to be declared to be "notable". Probably not. We clearly can't base notability on where the team plays today because present circumstances don't dictate past influence and notability. The English structure has changed so much over the years; I'm a relative noob and outsider when it comes to the history of the game so I can't declare myself to be an expert on what was what during XXXX–XXXX years. That said, I still believe that a team should at the very least need to be fully professional in order to be notable in a given season (Caveat: unless there was an extenuating circumstance, such as an non-professional side that won the FA Cup or some other obviously notable achievement). I'd say that if a team, such as the example of Southampton given by Daemonic Kangaroo is a good example. I'd say that the years where the club was relegated to a regional league would be best served to be covered in the History of Southampton F.C. article rather than to have their own individual season articles. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a special situation. Ecuador and Brazil did not have a national leagues for a good part of their history. They did have top-flight leagues in their states/regions. (Granted, sources for teams playing in that time might be sparse, so it's not like someone might create an article about those teams soon. But should sources become available, I don't want to bring this issue up later). Without a national league competition, would a club's season still be notable? (Keep in mind these state/regional leagues are professional). Digirami (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, that my earlier criteria would only apply to English football in the present day. I'm not sure about older time periods or other countries, but from what I know about the Southern League, it was a fairly big league a century ago, so perhaps clubs that played in the top division of the Southern League would be notable, but only up to a certain point. Going by the text in the Southern Football League article, perhaps that point would be 1920, when "virtually the entire top division of the Southern League was absorbed by the Football League". The seasons of any clubs that played exclusively in the Southern League after that point, in my book, wouldn't be notable, but like I say, I don't know enough about the league to make a definite comment. What do people think? – Pee Jay 22:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This might be a stupid suggestion, but why not allow a season article for any team whose campaign also allows for player notability? matt91486 (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The two go hand in hand and the criteria for notability should be much the same - Peejay is absolutely spot on with his suggestion that seasons in the Southern League from 1920 would not be notable. In reality, in the late Victorian era, the football League itself was hardly a "national" league, nor was it "fully professional". In 1899–1900 for example, there were no Football League First Division sides from below the Birmingham area, and only Arsenal and Luton in the Second Division. Most teams from London (the capital of the nation) played in the Southern League. Rant over. -Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"I'd say that the years where the club was relegated to a regional league would be best served to be covered in the History of Southampton F.C. article rather than to have their own individual season articles" - but the club hadn't been relegated to a regional league. They'd simply started their existence in said league. Additionally, as pointed out, at the time only clubs from the Midlands and north competed in The Football League, and the top clubs in the South played in the Southern League, which some sources say was on a par with The Football League in this era (prior to World War I the champions of the two leagues met annually in the Charity Shield) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(answering matt91486, not sure where to indent to :-) why not allow a season article for any team whose campaign also allows for player notability? Because that brings you into the fully-professional league farce that is WP:ATHLETE. An example: players in the Algerian Championnat National can change hands for many millions of pounds, yet because that league is not proven to be fully-pro, such a player is not notable under WP:ATHLETE. It'd be pretty hard to argue that a club playing in a top-flight league who can spend millions on a single player is by definition not worthy of a season article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Several points... 1. "but the club hadn't been relegated to a regional league. They'd simply started their existence in said league. Additionally,..." Thanks for the correction. Like I said earlier, I'm not an expert on assoc football history. I'm just trying to keep conversation going in a constructive way so we can build a consensus of some sort. Various leagues in various eras may require different rules to determine season-article notability. 2. In regards to the Brazil issue, everyone knows that footy organization in Brazil has historyically been awkward with all of the state leagues and cups that run simultaneous to the national league, even having some teams playing simultaneously in both to this day. It may require a case-by-case determination or a similar varying league & era criteria. 3. The example of Algeria and WP:ATHLETE: it's important to remember that ATHLETE does not supercede WP:N, which is a mistake that too many FOOTY editors are eager to make. Sufficient coverage of a topic/person makes it notable. See WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that any club that gains enough third-party media attention for it's off field "goings on" as such to pass WP:GNG. Criteria for articles on clubs and players are a long way apart - players are notable for playing fully-pro or internationally whilst clubs are deemed notable if they compete in a national competition (such as FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase). As long as there is significant media coverage, a side from the standard issue match reports/latest transfers that wouldn't pass WP:NTEMP then their season should be notable. Clubs like FC United and A.F.C. Liverpool for example have a strong following and probably more so than some teams in national divisions, obvious the interest in them will mean they'll be followed a lot closely by media outlets, whilst teams at a similar level which receive little or no coverage won't be. --Jimbo^[online] 13:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Allsvenskan season articles

I noticed that the titles of the Allsvenskan season articles (which can be found on this template page) all have the form "Allsvenskan [Year]" (e.g. Allsvenskan 2009). I am posting here to ask whether it would be more appropriate for them to take the form "[Year] Allsvenskan season" (e.g. 2009 Allsvenskan season). tk tk tk 01:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Either "[Year] Allsvenskan season" or "[Year] Allsvenskan" would be fine, but "[Year] Allsvenskan" would be my preference. – Pee Jay 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also prefer the "[Year] Allsvenskan" format. *returns to wikibreak* --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I think adding "season" at the end of article title is better suited for seasons that are multi-faceted, such as two championship, multiple stages (like playoffs), etc. (this pretty much leaves out leagues using a league format / single championship, like most of Europe). Digirami (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm starting the process of moving the articles to "[Year] Allsvenskan". I'm also using "–" rather than "-" for years such as "1924–25", since that seems to be standard practice. tk tk tk 00:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming South American leagues

I could use some help on how to rename the Latin American Primera Division leagues's articles to the "new" format. I'll use Uruguay for the example. Here are the options I can think of:

2009-10 Primera Division de Uruguay
2009-10 Primera Division Uruguaya
2009-10 Primera Division (Uruguay)
2009-10 Uruguayan Primera Division

Keep in mind that in some Primera Division leagues, Primera Division is not the official name, per say, but rather a shortened version of the official name (or simply the most common). Following the Uruguay example, the full name of the league as it appears in regulations is "Liga Profesional de Primera División". (Other Primera Divisions are like that too: Paraguay is "División Profesional de la Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol" or "Division de Honor de la APF"; Chile is "Primera División del Fútbol Profesional Chileno"; Mexico is "Primera Division Profesional"). So sticking the official name of the league in the article title might be a bad idea. But let's open it up to discussion. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 2009–10 Primera División (Uruguay) would be the best idea, since "Uruguay" isn't part of the league's official name and I don't think that we should mix English and Spanish in the title. – Pee Jay 08:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, because of the nature of those leagues' formats, adding "season" to the article would be a plus and probably make good sense. Most, if not all, Primera Divisions have mutli-championship/stages seasons. So take that into consideration, too, just in case. Digirami (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We didn't reach fair consensus last time because of the La Liga dispute. However, I think we should try one more time but this time focus on the Latin American leagues so we can do that mass movement, considering most Latin American competitions are on hold due to the holidays. I'm in favor of the Primera División (Uruguay) format. --MicroX (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea as well. WFCforLife (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else have an opinion on the matter? --MicroX (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay on this. Name followed by a disambiguation in brackets if necessary seems to be the standard naming convention for most if not all articles. I see no reason to deviate from that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are the potential changes:

2009-10 Primera División (Argentina)
2009 Primera División (Chile)
2009-10 Primera División (Costa Rica)
2009-10 Primera División (El Salvador)
2009 Primera División (Paraguay)
2009 Primera División (Peru)
2009-10 Primera División (Uruguay)
2009-10 Primera División (Venezuela) --MicroX (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I still like the "2009-10 Uruguayan Primera Division" option. If we can avoid a disambiguation in parenthesis, great! Most of the time, we end up using the demonym in prose anyways ("he plays in the Uruguayan Primera Division", for example) and goes better with the naming convention of articles outside the region (we have Russian Premier League, not Premier League (Russia)). Digirami (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious to know if those Russian words translate to Premier League. It also says it is called the Russian Football Championship. --MicroX (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It translates to it. In fact, RFPL=Russian Football Premier League. Digirami (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I don't know Russian. In any case, if brackets are used, then we can pipe the wikilinks. By the way, would you be in favor of Ecuadorian Serie A or Serie A (Ecuador) --MicroX (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely "Serie A (Ecuador)" in my opinion. – Pee Jay 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we get the moving started? --MicroX (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Ok, I'm back from vacation.) I still think my option is better. It would require less piping under normal circumstances/usage in prose. Digirami (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile's and Colombia's season articles are using the format Dirigami supports. But the main page doesn't. Also, what about the Uruguayan and Venezuelan articles? Venezuela is way off with 2009–10 Primera División Venezolana season and is season really necessary? I don't see why we have to mock the MLS format. I see the clear intent to mock the Premier League articles but why mix it up with MLS style? --MicroX (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding "season" is not mixing it with MLS style, but American leagues style in general. Adding "season" is especially useful and important in league seasons that involve multiple championships (Mexico, Colombia, Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia, and maybe Uruguay and Venezuela since it culminates in a playoff), not like the Premier League or any European league (besides maybe Cyprus). I do not advocate adding "season" to Ecuador and Brazil because "campeonato" serves the same purpose. Digirami (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But they are all seasons to begin with, regardless of the format, stages or champions. "Season" is redundant in the article title. --MicroX (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Unlike the 2009–10 Premier League or the 2010 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, a league season article like the 2009–10 Primera Division Argentina covers a season of multiple championships, not a singular championship/competition. There is a significant difference, and that distinction has to be made in the title in some form. If it wasn't for the Apertura and Clausura double championship system, I (myself) wound rethink the motion of adding "season". But since it is not, well, you know. Digirami (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that by just leaving out season from any South American championship, people still understand what is going on. If we start putting season non-editors are going to be "ok, why do the South American soccer leagues have season in their titles but the rest of the world don't" That's why the templates already have "seasons" as their title. We all know they are seasons. --MicroX (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is where the lead kicks in. If it is unambigously described that the "2345-46 xyz season consists of two separate championships with the same teams" (you get the idea), than no one will have anything to complain about.

As you can see, I would also advocate the use of "season" in article titles. However, the use should be strictly limited to those countries where two or more consecutive and distinctive tournaments with the exactly same set of teams (or, for the Liguillas or similar sub-competitions, a subset of those teams) are played within a single year. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems foolish. Countries like Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay and Chile have two separate championships per season. Each one crowns a national champion. In Uruguay and Venenzeuala, they employ Apertura/Clausura as well, however, they only crown one national champion at the end of the year. Peru and Ecuador only crown one champion too but they don't use Apertura/Clausura. Instead they stages to define their championship. Brazil (and I wish the rest of South America would be smart enough to mimic their format) is the only one that saves itself because they use a simple, fair system which is also the European format. Also, we will have inconsistencies throughout the season articles themselves. Take the Argentine seasons. In the past, they weren't Apertura/Clausura. So a reader will notice "So the 1989-90 season doesn't have the word 'season' in it but the 1990-91 does?" This whole addition of season is going to confuse readers. --MicroX (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. While the 2009–10 Premier League or the 2010 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A is one competition in one season, not adding "season" is not entirely necessary. But since the 2009–10 Primera Division Argentina and similar leagues is not a competition, but actually two competitions that comprise a season, a distinction in the title should be made. Adding "season" does that. This is much the same logic being the 2009 Major League Soccer season naming convention (or any American sports league) since there is a regular season and a playoffs. "2009 Major League Soccer" is not a sufficient title for that page... same goes for the applicable South American league seasons. Digirami (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you've convinced me. Affected Primera División articles are: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela. Ecuador already has Campeonato in it so it's excluded. --MicroX (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Now, how are we on the naming convention of non-European Primera Divisions? Before we start, I think something like this cannot be decided upon here. I think most of the users/editors of those pages would like say in such matter, but are unaware such an discussion exists in this talk page. Opening a discussion in the talk page of either the Mexican or Argentine Primera (with a note in the remainder of the Primeras) would be the most visible and would likely generate the most input to such decision. Digirami (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. However, starting discussions all over the place is counter-productive, so I would suggest to slap Template:Relevant discussion on the top of each affected article (explicitly not the talk pages of these articles) and point to this place. The discussion itself could be led either under one of the already existing subheadings or in a completely new section, whatever is preferred. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion reinitiated

Ok, I have decided to reinitiate this conversation to bring in more outside opinion and restate origin points on the matter. To those not familiar with the purpose of this discussion, it has been suggested that all Latin American Primera Divisións be renamed to a common format (this will subsequently affect their season articles, too). Here are the options, using Uruguay as an example:

Primera Division de Uruguay
Primera Division Uruguaya
Primera Division (Uruguay)
Uruguayan Primera Division

Please leave your preferred option and some reasoning behind to advance this discussion in a positive direction. Thank you. Digirami (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get it started. My preferred option is #4: Uruguayan Primera Division. It is the way we tend to word the name of the league in prose and would require no piping, example "Fernando Correa plays for River Plate in the Uruguayan Primera Division." Option #1 could get problematic with Primera Divisions whose country's name requires an accent in Spanish (Peru & Mexico). Option #2, because of Argentina, would make other users think we are using the country's name as a disambiguator and not the Spanish descriptive adjective. Additionally for both, we should use English as the disambiguators, not Spanish. I think any way we can avoid a disambiguation using parenthesis is better, which is why I lean away from option #3. Digirami (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the official name of the league is simply "Primera División", I opt for #3. – Pee Jay 21:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion, although if there is an accent I see no reason to omit it. WFCforLife (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ya, the accent was omitted for the fact that I didn't want to bother typing in the accent (I use an American keyboard and it doesn't have an accent key, and if it does, never really bother to learn how to use it).

"Primera Division", for the vast majority of the leagues, is the short common name. These are the official name for a few select leagues, so far as I have found:

Mexico: Primera Division Profesional
Uruguay: Liga Profesional de Primera División
Chile: Primera División del Fútbol Profesional Chileno
Paraguay: División Profesional de la Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol or Division de Honor
Argentina, Venezuela, and El Salvador (maybe Costa Rica, too): Primera Division
Peru: Primera Profesional (but I could be wrong on this one. additionally, they call their seasons something different)

So, in short, we dealing with "Primera Division" generally as the commonname of the league, not the outright official name for all of them. Digirami (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just Primera División. Profesional is just to boast its professionalism on the FPF website. The tournaments themselves are called Torneo Descentralizado or Campeonato Descentralizado in earlier times (since 1966). I'd go with Primera División for Peru's naming but its current naming is similar to Chile's in length: Torneo Descentralizado de Fútbol Profesional Peruano. Like I said, I'd just go with Primera División and in the season articles mention the names they were given in the lead. Some proof (in spanish) that the Primera División of Peru is recognized as Primera División, for now. --MicroX (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me: If the seasons/tournaments in Peru are called Torneo/Campeonato Descentralizado, why did you rename them recently? I think Torneo/Campeonato Descentralizado is a more correct name for Peru's football seasons. Digirami (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right but this leads me to a larger problem. This move of renaming to Descentralizado would force me to rename all the seasons prior to 1966 by their official name (for consistency) because I have learned that prior to 1966, the seasons had different names such as Campeonato de Selección y Competencia (in the 40s) or Campeonato de Competencia (in 1955); which leads to the following questions: when did they decide to remove the word selección from the competition name and I wonder what other competition names were used throughout the history of Peruvian soccer as well as when did they decide to switch from Campeonato to Torneo for Descentralizado. Furthermore, I would only have official sources for the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons (which has yet to be published). It's a mess. I can only find bits and pieces of information thanks to some websites but I can't find it all. Therefore, due to lack of official sources, I'd just rename them all to Primera División (it really doesn't matter to me if it's bracketed or includes nationality adjective in the front) So what's it going to be? --MicroX (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Something I wanted to bring up to the discussion. Would it be Argentine Primera División or Argentinean Primera División or Argentinian Primera División? --MicroX (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the correct demonym is "Argentine", so I think we should use that. – Pee Jay 11:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chile has switched to the regular season format because of the earthquake. Since the season doesn't meet the several stages criterion, I'll remove season from the 2010 season. --MicroX (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Argentine is the preferred demonym. Digirami (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "Uruguayan Primera Division" is the best variant, because it's English-language Wiki and englification must be, it's not bad.--UruguayRus (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Implementation (i.e. progress)

I'm curious as to how far the members of this task for have gone in implementing the (95%) agree upon structure of the league season articles? For the most part, I see some implementation of the model (minus the European competition section) in some of the major leagues, but not close enough (the closest is probably the Bundesliga). I feel that if we get the major leagues in Europe to start using that, or a similar, format, everyone else will follow suit. Digirami (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One major problem I see with the model in your sandbox is that none of the sources are in English, though I'm not sure how many English sources actually exist of the Cypriot First Division. Everything else, however, looks pretty good. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not my model. User:Soccer-holic created it, but I believe most people are in agreement with it, save for maybe a few minor details that can ironed out (and quickly). Digirami (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Match articles

I was just thinking that the aims of this task force might be extended to cover articles about individual matches. Match articles could certainly do with some organisation and some form of MOS, and I think that this task force could help sort that out. Anyone else? – Pee Jay 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way. We need to set out guidelines for notability of individual matches and the MOS. Any matches which are not notable can be incorporated into club season articles as they are created. 03 md 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Club season articles (continued)

I wasn't around for the earlier discussion, which doesn't seem to have resulted in much by the way of consensus. Here were a few areas I was curious as to what people's opinons were:

Level of detail How much detail is appropriate, and how much is needless or trivial? Friendly attendances? Minute in which the goal was scored? The Ref's name? Bookings in each match? Whether a red came as a result of two yellows? Player injuries? Formation changes throughout a game/season? Should there be a kit section? Financial section? I'm not ridiculing any of those ideas, I'm just wondering what people's opinions are as to which are necessities, which are desirable, which are at best optional and which are completely over the top.

Duplication If we're listing player statistics in one big table as nearly all the articles seem to, are smaller tables (top scorers for instance) excessive? If we're listing all results, is a match-by-match commentary of the season over the top, or does it enhance the article? Do partial tables such as the one here add to the article, or should they replace/be replaced by something like this (possibly a bit more colourful though)?

Order Should we make a decision between chronological order and competition-by-competition reviews, or does it matter. Should the stats tables be incorporated into the body of the text, kept together for ease of access at the end, or neither of the above?

References When is/isn't it appropriate to reference the club's own website? Statistics? Match reports? Injury news?

I'm sure there are more, that's all that I can think of at the moment. WFCforLife (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll address your questions one at a time where possible. Level of detail: Information such as attendances, minutes in which goals are scored, the referee's name, bookings, and cards can all be included in a match box, of which I'd recommend {{Footballbox collapsible}}. Once the data is in the box then it's unnecessary to make the prose section very stat-heavy. For example, for anyone at all interested in collegiate American football, see another article that I'm working on: 2009 Pittsburgh Panthers football team#Game notes. As you can see, the box score on the right side includes a lot of statistics, which allows for summary and prose on the left. Another way of going about things would be similar to the Ice Hockey Project. For example, the 2008–09 Pittsburgh Penguins season article has a table of game scores but is also broken down in prose on a month-by-month basis. I'm not recommending the exact same format because the sports are different – such as some European footy clubs simultaneously participating in up to four competitions – but it's an idea. Financial information can be included as well if it is notable. Arsenal's huge profits and Portsmouth's financial woes are notable, and so is taking on an additional minority owner for an influx of cash. I don't know how necessary a kit section would be because the kit images are included in the infobox. A blurb about sponsors, designers, unveilings, etc. could be included, but it's not necessary to duplicate the kit images. Speaking of duplication... I'd say that partial tables such as the Watford end-of-August-standings table is really unnecessary and should be deleted. It would be much preferred if the data of the table were converted to prose such as – but not necessarily identical to – "Watford finished August in 13th place, level with Doncaster Rovers, with six points in five matches." Another issue with duplication involves tables showing leading scorers. I think that those tables should not be included if the article includes a complete player table. However, I understand the inclusion of such tables because {{Efs start}} et al. are not sortable, which would be very helpful for seeing leading goal-scorers, etc. Order: I'm not really sure what the best order would be. I suppose that prose should probably be prioritized and that tables & statistics should be towards the end of the article. References: Citing the club's website should be discouraged. See: WP:SPS. Information such as statistics doesn't require opinion or expertise so that may be cited from a club's own website, but 3rd parties are still preferred. Perhaps citing self-published as well as 3rd parties for statistics or matches would decrease the odds of having dead links later. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of that.

Just for clarity I don't intend to keep the August table in the article. Once September is fully written up I'd have the table as of the end of September and delete the August one, and continue on that basis through the season. There's a good reason for doing it that way- matches played by other clubs on different days may alter the table, which probably wouldn't be updated until the club in question's next match. A league table clearly identified as being the table at the end of a given month is verifiable and will always remain accurate, even if nobody bothers to update the article for a period of time afterwards. WFCforLife (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blackburn 2009–2010

Hi I was bored at work today and noticed that the Blackburn page was a bit bare so have started editing it. However I'm pretty new to this wiki-ing and am not the best so it is currently looking out of sorts. Also I wasn't aware of this group before I started so I will try and adjust it so it meets the agreed standards. May take me a few days though.

Just thought I would let people know. Cheers. Bobatron83 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, I like the work you done on that page.
0-- HonorTheKing (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Results display

I wanted to check WP:Footy members opinions on the type of boxes that should be used on club season articles. Currently we have a number of different variations on various articles, e.g. this, this and this. Which is the preferred option - I personally like PeeJay's choice or the ones in the American articles. 03 md 22:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer this one. The colors are kind of annoying in the D.C. article. But why are there so many variations? --MicroX (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All of them have good things about them. The idea of wikilinking grounds (or at least neutral and away grounds) is one that hadn't even crossed my mind but that I like. Personally I'm strongly in favour of keeping competitions in separate tables (albeit they all follow the same structure). I don't see what the collapsible example adds; it is possible to get all this information except the referee's name in the same space. WFCforLife (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for a standardised one. I've used two example high scoring matches to demonstrate the likely space implications.

Legend

Win	Draw	Loss

Watford F.C. goals listed first


Date	Opponent	Venue	Result	Attendance	Watford scorers	Opposition scorers
18 August 2009	Nottingham Forest	Away	4–2	19,232	Graham 31', Williamson 76', Smith 80', Cleverley 90+2'	Blackstock 45+2', Adebola 87'
3 October 2009	Cardiff	Home	0–4	13,895		Whittingham 24' (pen), Matthews 41', Whittingham 66', Bothroyd 67'
13 Smarch 3009	Template Town F.C.	Home	0–0	13,895

I'm open to whether or not it's sortable- not opposed but I don't see any benefit. I suppose my example could easily be modified accordingly. WFCforLife (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty pointless in me contributing to this discussion, as it's obvious which option I prefer! Nevertheless, I've never seen the point in listing the opposition's scorers. Season articles are supposed to focus on the club's they're about, not the opposition. After all, opposition scorers can be noted in the article text, such as in the latest Man Utd season article. – Pee Jay 23:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

While I see where you're coming from, I'd argue that they're if anything the opposition's scorers are more important than the club's own scorers. A neutral reading the article would have equal interest in both sets of scorers in a given match, and in any case will also have the benefit of the players appearance stats and possibly a goalscorers table as well. WFCforLife (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that sortability is very useful on a results table. What are you going to sort? Attendance? Clubs? The first goalscorer? I don't see the point. {{Footballbox collapsible}} is the best option in my opionion. Because the default state of that template is to be collapsed it only takes up one line of space per match and prevents the tables from taking up a ton of space like they do in some articles. It's even recommended on our task force's main main. The example table shown above in this section would take up far too much space in the article once you add all forty-six League Championship matches, not to mention however many FA Cup & League Cup matches are played. Season articles are not supposed to be lists; they're articles. The prose should be the focal point of the article, and the tables, boxes, and statistics should be supplementary. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that there's any difference in the amount of space taken up by the collapsible footballbox compared to the tables in the Man Utd season articles. 38 lines of Premier League fixtures in a table probably even takes up less space than 38 templates in a row. The example table would certainly take up too much room, but I still don't see why opposition goalscorers are necessary. As you say, Johnny, the prose is the focal point of the article, so the basic info should go in the tables, while supplementary info can be included in the prose. Furthermore, I agree that sortability is definitely not necessary. – Pee Jay 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[Undent] I would contest that the collapsible box is superior because it will rarely take more than one line. Many tables, including the custom table on the Man U example, easily could expand vertically, dependant upon one's screen resolution. WP's Accessibility standards are such that display for an 800x600 resolution be considered. Although that may seem like an archaic resolution to many, there are many others in the world whose computers can't display higher resolutions; there are also people, generally older people, whose vision requires they set their computers to a low resolution or a larger font preset. Also, by including the opposition's goalscorers in the footballbox, it allows the prose to be brief/concise and more focused upon the team whom the article is about. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think that the opposition goalscorers should be removed from the prose under any circumstances. The mention need not be long, but certainly a statement like "Player X equalised for Club Y in the Zth minute" (except tailored to fit the surrounding prose) would be essential. WP:ACCESS is definitely an important point, and if it is true that the collapsible footballbox complies with accessibility guidelines better than the tables, then I'll certainly be for it. – Pee Jay 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently using 800x600, and I see what you mean about accessibility. On that basis I agree that collapsible infoboxes are a good starting point, although I really dislike the location info in the DC United one. Displaying the town and country in the collapsed version would be completely unnecessary for the vast majority of European clubs, whose names correspond pretty accurately with their locations. Putting the stadium on that top line would in my opinion be far more useful, with the town and country information in the expanded version if necessary. WFCforLife (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just following on from my last comment, what I'd propose is to partially ignore the literal meaning of the stadium parameter in {{Footballbox collapsible}} and do something like this:

9 July 2006	Italy	1 – 1 (a.e.t.) (5 – 3 p)	France	Olympiastadion, Berlin
20:00	Materazzi 19'	(Report)	Zidane 7' (pen.) Zidane 110'	Attendance: 69,000 Referee: Horacio Elizondo (Argentina)
	Penalties
	Pirlo Materazzi De Rossi Del Piero Grosso		Wiltord Trezeguet Abidal Sagnol

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning for ignoring the separate fields. Most clubs everywhere have a city/town name built into their title so I'm not sure how being in Europe is relevant. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it's the format of the box itself I'm not too keen on. I'd rather that when collapsed it said "Stadium: Olympiastadion, and if absolutely necessary had Berlin, Germany in the expanded version. If I'm playing in the English league and the opposition is Newcastle United, "Newcastle, England" is pretty redundant and certainly of less use than "Stadium: St James' Park" WFCforLife (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the collapsible option. It requires no additional templates, all fields are optional, and the colors are optional (which could be a bit annoying). It's not much different from what we use in continental tournaments (in fact, I can copy and paste a match from one of those articles, move it my team's season page, add one word to the template name and it is good to go). Digirami (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chamois Niortais F.C. season 2009–10

Similar to the Weymouth situation from a few weeks ago, here a new PROD: Chamois Niortais F.C. season 2009–10. It states in the opening paragraph that the club is no longer professional because they play in "the Championnat de France amateur, the fourth tier of the French football league system." JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the French league structure, but their fourth tier seems pretty similar to our fifth tier. The fact that it has the word "amateur" in the league name shouldn't be the decisive factor- it is in fact a semi-pro league. The Football Conference is also semi-pro, but there are plenty of clubs there with season articles, not all of whom are fully professional. Prodding one of those certainly wouldn't be a non-controversial move.

For the record if there was an AfD I would vote delete (and for that reason I'm not contesting your prod) but I think it's a conversation that is worth having, and that an AfD may be the right place. WFCforLife (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass movement of league articles to changed naming format

For your information, I have moved the UEFA top league articles of this season from <League name 2009-10> to <2009-10 League name>, according to the consensus established here. This is the beginning of the last part of moves for this year's season articles. More will follow in the next couple of days.

If you would like to help, assist in moving the remaining articles in both Category:2009–10 domestic football (soccer) leagues and Category:2009 domestic football (soccer) leagues and ensure that they are properly sorted under the name of the competition. For example, the 2009-10 Premier League would go under P (and not under E as in England, as this would cause confusion during browsing). Also, please make sure that any templates linking to the old names are updated as well. Thanks, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I have requested for a bot to move all of the Spanish competition season articles to use the new naming conventions. The bot request can be found here. – Pee Jay 22:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would request on holding off on renaming the leagues in Latin America, as we have been discussing on a new naming format for them. Once that is done, which should be in a couple of days, then a rename to move the year in the front will be done. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear about the new naming format for those. I had quite some trouble to determine a few correct names, especially for the leagues in Panama and Mexico. Generally spoken, all the categories named "xxxx in football (soccer)" could use a little clean up, as most of the leagues are listed both there and in one of the respective "domestic league" subcategories. If anybody is willing to assist in cleaning other people's messes, feel free to do so... :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to 2009–10 Premier League

Please take a look at User:Soccer-holic/Sandbox. The changes made include a general change in the section layout (roughly similar to 2009–10 Fußball-Bundesliga), the way of displaying the goalscorers/assistant lists (WP:LIST instead of WP:TABLE) and slight amendments to the infobox (shortening of team names, no flag for the top scorer). Opinions welcome!

If there are no objections (or any design epic fails ;-) ), I will suggest the changes for approval on the talk page of the Premier League article tomorrow. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with having the team overview section above the league table and results sections, or with replacing the top goalscorers/assists tables with lists, but the rest of the changes I definitely agree with. I just think it seems a bit odd to be giving the changes in teams' kits priority over the actual league positions. I'm not sure exactly where I would put it, but I don't think that putting that info at the top is a good idea. – Pee Jay 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the "Team overview" section is, as its name says, to give a short overview on the participating teams of the season. As for the kits section, I didn't know where to put it either and thus added it at the end of the overview section. The problem here is that the English Premier League article is basically the only one to use such a section.

I agree that the kits unnecessarily stretch the overview section. How about the radical idea of leaving that information out of the article altogether? The rationale behind this idea is the excessive detail the kits are described in, which can be taken as a case of WP:NOT#IINFO. An alternative idea would be to only include the kitmakers and the chest sponsors, along with the current managers, in a separate table, which would be titled "Personnel and sponsoring" and located between the "Teams and stadia" and "Managerial changes" tables (see also the current Championship article).

Finally, the argument of having the goalscorers and assistants formatted as lists instead of tables is based on the relative simplicity of the information: One or more players are grouped by the number of goals/assists they scored during a season. WP:WTUT states that "If a list is simple, use one of the standard Wikipedia list formats." Another benefit would be that editing a list is a lot easier to handle than a table structure. As you can see here, the listing of the players' clubs is also unproblematic in a list structure. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 07:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some consolidation of the team overview tables would be required. If we could get one table that includes team name, chairman, manager, city, stadium and stadium capacity (plus some other info that I can't think of right now), that would be perfect. The managerial changes and ownership changes sections could then be moved lower down the article in order to give a bit more priority to the league table and match results. – Pee Jay 08:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you bring that up. The problem with one large table is the space being used, it's just too wide, especially for lower display resolutions than 1024x768 (yes, these are still in use today, although not in the highly-technisized parts of this planet). There originally was one big table for this stuff and the maps were located on the top of the article. However, the addition of the infoboxes proved to be critical for the layout, as the boxes moved the maps further down the page into the "Overview" and sometimes even the "League table" sections, often making it difficult to properly read the single table. Thus, the tables were split between Stadia/locations and other information as it can be seen in most of the UEFA league articles. The only known cases where a split is not needed are Turkey and Russia due to the shape of those countries. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the proposal, whether its with one table or a series of tables. It would be good (if this format is agreed upon) if it could be applied to all the Premier League season articles because they all follow completely different formats at the moment. Should we have a brief overview of the season in prose (not a club-by-club guide)? 03 md 08:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? If included, it should be located either in the lead section, or, if too long, in front of the "Team overview" section (for an example, take a look at Fußball-Bundesliga 1967–68). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the changes in the sandbox article. Also, I think the season review in prose is a great idea as long as it stays concise. Some (IP) editors will want a blurb about "their team" in it even if their team wasn't remotely involved in the league title race. I'm just trying to say that it's important to keep it focused on the league competition. To me, the example of the 1967–68 Bundesliga seems like some of the info about the German clubs participating in European competition belongs in a 1967–68 in German football article, but until that article exists, I guess that it's fine to include it in the Bundesliga article. Finally, I think that the kit changes are relatively unimportant and – if included at all – should be bumped to the bottom of the article. Aren't those kit changes going to be covered in each team's season article? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that any prose summary of the season needs to be concise, but let's not fall into the elitist trap of focusing only on the sides going for the league title. I would say that any important matches need mentioning, whether they be at the top of the table, at the bottom, or simply to decide European places. – Pee Jay 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(pull out) I removed the entire kits section from the sandbox under the assumption that any kit changes will be covered within the team season articles. As for the content of a possible second table - I would suggest to choose the stuff which will eventually be included from the following items: Current owner, current manager, current team captain, kitmaker, shirt sponsor, last year's final position, "in league since". Further ideas are welcome; however, we should probably not include every item since this would get a little hard to overlook.

By the way, my two cents on said table are not to include it into the article at all because the included content is just too... well, it can change every second if necessary (except the last two proposals, of course). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I can support much of the changes here, though I'm uncertain on taking the goalscorers/assists out of a table. It seems a bit like replacing the jet engine with a propeller engine for no other reason than "the sake of change". The table does the job, and looks considerably better than just a bullet-point list of names. The other point I'd like to raise is to draw attention to a previously-ongoing debate about what belongs in the season stats section. I support 90% of what's there, but do we really need to record the first goal and first yellow card? Those things are just far too commonplace, it's like recording the first player to take a kick-off or the first player not to wear black boots. No-one will really ever want that information, and even if they did it would be a 1 minute job to find out said info. I could see the point in first red card, first hattrick, etc, because these things are not every-game occurrences and often don't even happen between all games in a game week, it's an interesting bit of trivia in that regard. First goal and first yellow card are just far too common. If you went into a bookies asking the odds on the first game having a card and a goal they'd likely throw out your request for being far too likely to be worth making odds on. I'm open to discussion on the matter if anyone has a different opinion, though. In fact, I'd appreciate hearing what others think; the last discussion was noticeably...unnoticed. If I recall, a grand total of one other person actually commented on the proposal, and that was the guy who proposed it. It would be good to hear some feedback. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest we remove first goal, first penalty, first yellow card, card given at latest point in a game (is the person who receives the latest booking for timewasting really notable?).

I would personally remove first own goal, first red card, possibly first hat-trick and possibly the miscellaneous ones.

I would suggest adding most hat-tricks, fastest hat-trick, most yellows/reds in the season (by club and player).

I would suggest changing "Most goals scored in a match by different players for the same team" to simply "Most different goalscorers in a match". WFCforLife (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the Premier League has too many tables. I think the kits table should go, and their respective information would be better of in the teams' season articles. Move "Stadia/um" (whatever) to the top of the article, rename the section as "Teams", and incorporate the relegation/promotion list as prose into the team section. While doing that, replace the capacity with a list of the managers, sort the table by team name, and move the managerial changes under the Teams heading as a sub-section (for an idea of what that might look like, see here). This could go some way to not having this article (and others that might look to this as an example) as just one big article with tables, lists, and stats (I'm also aware that will be lessened when the overview section is written). I'm also guessing that pretty much every team in this season's Premier League has a season article going. If that's the case, link them in the "Teams" overview section. Digirami (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion officially dead? If so, let's achieve consensus among us, change the page and see what happens. Digirami, your ideas regarding the team sections sound good. However, where would stuff like "The league size has been decreased from twenty to sixteen teams" or "England lost one place in the Champions League" or even "Portsmouth sold their license to League One sides Leeds United" being placed? Lead section? Elsewhere? Further, what do the others think of incorporating team changes as prose before the "Teams and stadia" table? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't watch Premier League football because I'm not a big fan of ballet and synchronised diving, but surely there must be something to write about the season? All those changes sound good to me, my advice would be to go ahead with them, and if someone objects at least they'll be actively engaged in the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reindent) You raise some proper concerns. When it comes to general changes in the structure-- whether they be changes in berths to international tournaments, changes to the competition's format (a common occurrence in the league I follow), or any notable changes to the regulations in general, including the number of teams-- that information can go in the a seperate section, preferably after the table of contents and before the teams (off the top of my head, you can call it "structural changes"). But changes in the teams because of promotion/relegation should go in a "Teams information" section in prose. Let me type an example.

==Changes for 2009-10==
For this season, the number of teams in the league will be increased from twenty to twenty-four. In addition, yadda yadda yadda, enter other relevant text here.
==Team information==
ZZZ, XXX, and YYY were relegated at the end of last season after finishing 18th, 19th, and 20th, respectively. Due to the increase in the number of teams this season, seven teams were promoted from the Football League to bring the total to 24. Those teams promoted were AAA, BBB, CCC, (etc.). (You can also add interesting/trivial information about the teams being relegated/promoted, similar to what this season's Brazilian Serie A teams section did --- which is where I got the whole idea from.). (Insert table with information and map with stadium locations)

This is just a rough example, but it should get the point across. Digirami (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

One more suggestion is in the infobox. I think it is a good idea to link the year in the season parameter to the country's year in review article (in this case 2009–10 in English football). Digirami (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

AFC Marlborough season 2009–10

How about this season article for AFC Marlborough, a club currently playing at the 17th (!) step of the football pyramid (Witney and District League, Division Four to be exact)? In other words: On which step of the league system is the cutoff point for season club articles? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think that the cut-off point in England should be seasons spent at a national level of the league system (or in the Southern League until 1980-something). The AFC Marlborough season article should be cast into Erebus. – Pee Jay 22:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just on a related point, would Third Division North/South seasons be notable? I ask this because in 1914-15 Watford were Southern League Champions, in the following season (1919-20, because of the rude interruption) we were runners up, yet in the following season upon our "Promotion" to the Football League I'm not sure if we were notable anymore. On a related note, are players who played in the Third Division North/South notable? WFCforLife (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot about the Third Division North/South. Yes, seasons spent in those divisions are certainly notable, as are players who played in them. – Pee Jay 07:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Injuries

I was just wondering, are long-term injuries (I know this completely arbitrary but for arguments sake a month or more) notable? I've noticed a couple of season articles have them, and they are generally well sourced, but wasn't sure what the consensus was? I ask this partly because I think it's a valid question, and partly because I really don't have a clue what on earth to do with Jay DeMerit's situation. Early indications are that he could be out until 2010, which is somewhat significant. Now obviously I can't source that length of time out unless and until it happens, but the phrase "On the eve of his scheduled return from injury against Plymouth Argyle,^{<ref 1>} DeMerit suffered a severe eye injury as a result of a slipped contact lens, which sidelined him for the next four months^{<ref 2>}" doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopaedic. WFCforLife (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If the player in question is a key player for the club, the mentioning of the injury in an appropriate section should be fine. On a related note, what on earth did DeMerit do so that he suffered an injury from a contact lens??? :-D --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes I definitely should mention it, just wondering if a table would be a step too far. I saw one in the Spurs article which was pretty detailed and well sourced, but I wasn't sure if that was over the top, and what qualifies as a "long term" or "notable" injury.

DeMerit had an allergic reaction to some dust which got caught on the inside of the lens, and also ended up with some sort of hideous infection. He lost all sight in the eye for a few weeks, has had surgery to remove his cornea, and according to Neil Price (the man in the know on all things Watford) he needs to have another operation once the eye has recovered from that surgery, and will probably be out until the new year. WFCforLife (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Mexican league

Before I try making one season article for the Mexican Primera Division, I have some questions. A couple things first on how each season is organized to bring newcomers up to speed. Each season of the Mexican Primera is divided into two separate tournaments/championships: the Apertura in the first half of the season, followed by the Clausura in the second half. Each tournament is contested by the same number of teams. Each tournament is divided into two stage: the classification stage (in a single round-robin format), and a final phase, popularly and incorrectly called a Liguilla (in a two-legged single elimination format, which culminates in the Finals). Relegation is done after the classification stage of the Clausura and only takes into account the classification stages points. As it stands now, each season of the Mexican Primera has six articles: each tournament has their own, and each tournament also has an article for the Liguilla and the Finals. Given that, here are the questions:

Should the Liguilla and the Finals have their own articles?
- Or should just the Finals?
How do we stand the use of the position by round? As far as I can tell, rounds in this league are rarely, if ever, changed or postponed.
Personnel table should go or stay?

That's it from me for now. Thanks. Digirami (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

These are my two cents on the matter:

Articles: Ideally just one which covers both Apertura and Clausura seasons. However, if a single article would be too large, there should be one for each half of the season (per WP:SIZE).
Liguilla: Include those into the main article(s) no matter what.
Finals: Given that we have articles on the English Football League play-off finals and various European (domestic) cup finals, it is hard to argue against stand-alone articles. However, I feel that those should be included in the main article rather than having their own article because those matches are rounding off the respective half of the tournament. What do the others think in this case?
Round-by-round tables: This is something which I would rather like not to be included (neither here nor in any other league season article), simply because of the huge WP:V issues. Another reason is that those are at least borderline in terms of violation of WP:NOT#STATS.
Personnel table: I'm undecided in this one as there are arguments for and against an inclusion. Again, what do the others think? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are mine:

Liguilla in my opinion should be in the main articles.
Finals- I think soccer-holic has it spot on. They should be covered in the main article regardless. I've got no objection to the finals having their own articles on top of that, but if such articles are created they should go into a level of detail that couldn't reasonably be done in the main article.
Round-by-round: totally agree with soccer-holic. The prose should outline anything important about individual clubs' performance. More generally, if a team loses its first five games and goes on to win the league, this would be worthy of a mention in the prose. If a team spends most of the season in 10th, but occasionally goes as high as 8th and as low as 11th, it's probably not (unless there is something special about 8th place).
Personnel: My problem isn't with the table, but with the fact that you would then need to also denote change of owners, (permanent) captains and presidents as well as managers.

WFCforLife (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Except for maybe a few minor details, this is essential how the previous season would look like given the opinions. Digirami (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be lying if I said I follow what's going on (it's a very complicated system), but that seems like a good layout to me. WFCforLife (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it's the groups that throws you off a bit. It did to me too until I read the regulations. Essentially, prior to the start of the season, the teams are placed in "groups", similar to the divisions in Major League Baseball, based on the previous year's performance. The two best comparartively within each group, plus two more from the league table, advance to the Liguilla/Final-Phase/playoffs. Digirami (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) I've placed a link to this discussion in the current Mexican tournament to bring in some of those editors to this discussion. Digirami (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge Apertura, Clausura, Apertura Liguilla, and Clausura Liguilla into one season article. The Apertura and Clausura finals should be merged into another article. --MicroX (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think merging Apertura and Clausura into one article would take away from certain highlights of the particular season, also I think the Final should get its own article as it is how the Champion of the tournament/season is represented . --Hazerduz (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hazerduz, could you please be a little more specific? What do you mean with "taking away from certain highlights"? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think no one particularly objects to having the finals in separate articles, as well. But I think we would rather have the remaining aspects of the season in one article. All the highlights would be taken care of the same. Digirami (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have been thinking more about it, I do think the Final phase also referred to as Liguila should get its own page, because those are the most important games as the champion comes from the final phase and not the regular season. All the regular season does is informs us how these teams will be placed. --Hazerduz (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see that the Mexican league is mimicking the NFL. The Torneo Apertura/Clausura articles are mimicking the regular season articles. The Liguilla articles are the playoffs and the finals would be the Super Bowl. However, the Mexican league runs all year. They even try to mimick the format of the competition (which is disastrous). So will they be merged? --MicroX (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Club kits (season articles)

Was reading a conversation above and couldn't see a definite explanation as to what should be done with Kits, on the Blackburn season page I have just put them in the infobox as is the case on many other premier league sides. However there are also pages that have dedicated sections to the kits. Personally I am of the opinion that they should be included on each page, although goalkeepers kits is probably going a bit far. Also is there a page that gives info on creating the kits as I need to add Blackburns third kit since it will be used as much as the away kit.Bobatron83 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the page which helps with creating kits: Template:Football kit should be the one you are looking for. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the link Bobatron83 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Copypasting question from Template talk:Football kit/pattern list. Is it possible to create bot or find another way to automatically add new patterns on the pattern gallery? I've seen millions of them (some not transparent of course, but a lot of transparent and useful also) on the team pages that aren't on the list. --NineInchRuiner (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Team of the Week" @ 2009 Meistriliiga

A discussion about the topic stated in the headline is currently ongoing at Talk:2009 Meistriliiga#Inclusion of "Team of the Week". Participation in this discussion would be appreciated. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Scores in cup season articles

What is the generally agreed upon best way to display the scores for national cups? I think all scores, except the finals, should use the {{twoleg results}} or {{oneleg results}}. The finals should definitely use the {{footballbox}} since it is the most notable match of the any competition and the one that warrants an exception. Digirami (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd draw the footballbox line at quarter finals. If the information necessary to go back to the quarter finals isn't available, people would continue to use the simpler template anyway. WFCforLife (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, are all scores notable? For instance, 2009–10 Coupe de France 1st through 2nd Rounds, the qualifying rounds of 2008–09 FA Trophy, or friendly matches in a club's season article? WFCforLife (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"minor" fixtures

I was trying to think of a less POV title. Basically, this match is technically a first team fixture, but it is beyond question that the club did not treat it as one- even the source says so. So, should the result be listed at all, should it be considered a "friendly" (with a footnote), or should the competition be given a separate section? WFCforLife (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd give it it's own "Herts Senior Cup" section. In the prose it's probably worth mentioning that only one player with first team experience featured. --Jimbo^[online] 01:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a similar situation to Manchester United's involvement in the Manchester Senior Cup. The competition is technically for senior teams, but United (and City and several other Football League teams) enter reserve teams, so the competition is treated as a reserve competition from Man Utd's point of view. Is it possible that the Herts Senior Cup is treated as a reserve competition by Watford, but as a senior competition by other clubs? – Pee Jay 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it (except that the Manchester senior cup is if anything a stronger competition, a Premier League reserve team is presumably stronger than a Southern Premier team). We literally field our under 18s plus one other, but does the fact that its obviously not a first team game mean that I can ignore the fact that it technically is? On the face of it it's crying out for a dose of common sense, but the reality is that I am listing friendly matches, yet considering ignoring a "first team" match. Doesn't seem very consistent. WFCforLife (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd leave it out. The competition isn't treated as a first-team competition by Watford FC (see here), so why should we? – Pee Jay 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

East Lancashire derby

Hi, I have just completely overhauled this article. Thing is I am a Blackburn fan and whilst trying to be as unbiased as possible some may have crept in there. Just wondering if someone could have a look. I know this message is strictly is in the wrong place but doesn't seem to be much action on the England Task Force page. If anyone can give it the once over and either drop some comments on the talk page or here it would be much appreciated, Thanks Bobatron83 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to forego asking the individual task forces to review your article, and take it to the big boys at WT:FOOTY. You're far more likely to get a response there. – Pee Jay 09:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Round by round league table.

I was wondering if anyone else feels one of these would be useful? I came across the French wikipedia's season article for Ligue 1, and found this [3]. I don't like that little diagram at the top, and obviously we need to take into account the fact that not all games are played at the same time. But the sortable table tells the story of each club's season more fairly and efficiently than prose ever could. Obviously it's not a substitute for prose, but having everything there would allow the prose to concentrate on a season review, without needing to worry about the fact that you may not have mentioned Stoke vs Birmingham. WFCforLife (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

They already do that in La Liga --MicroX (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for that. Should we consider expanding it into other leagues? WFCforLife (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see it incorporated into leagues where a single stage is played (mainly European leagues), however in leagues that divide their seasons into two or more stages and two or more tables, we may have a problem. This is seen in Peru and Ecuador, not to mention several other Latin American leagues that employ Apertura-Clausura formats. I do think it is a good idea for most single-table leagues, though. --MicroX (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to this idea. As the original comment states, it's impossible to account for the fact that not all games in any particular "round" of matches are played on the same weekend; some may even be months after the rest, as was the case last season when Manchester United had to have their league fixture against Fulham (or it might have been Wigan) postponed from December because of the Club World Cup. As such, this would create large discrepancies in the table: would you add in the postponed results at the time when they are played or would you back-add them? Would you simply record each team's position in the table after they reach a certain number of games? That one alone presents the possibility of having two teams in the same position in the table in any one round. I would say that unless these round-by-round tables can be reliably sourced, they should be left out on the grounds of WP:V and WP:NOR. – Pee Jay 08:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Another problem I see is that, sometimes, at the beginning of the season, several teams may share the same position as seen here --MicroX (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with PeeJay here. If there is no reliable and persistent source for each and every round, do not include those tables. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} (and now back to wikibreak) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think that such table is just way too wide? There're only 27 rounds that fit my screen (20 on 15'' monitor). I don't think such format is appropriate. --NineInchRuiner (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for club season articles

I feel it is time to establish some consensus on the best layout for club season articles. All of the articles for various clubs seem to vary, quite vastly in some cases, and I think it is important to at least have some level of consistency on tables, prose etc. I am in favour, for example, of collapsible results boxes like in this article but the results tables in this article also work. Maybe we need a guideline page like the one we have for league articles here and the discussions above. This should allow us to progress with the creation of consistent club season articles, as we are lagging behind the US sports in coverage levels. Any thoughts. 03 md 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the compliment. Secondly, where is this guideline page for league articles? I couldn't find it on the Season article task force main page. I'm going to create make a few sub-sections to this conversation, with the ultimate aim of drafting a guideline based on consensus.

I don't think it's quite fair to compare the coverage of our project's season articles to those of US sports, simply because of how limited US sports are in terms of teams and competitions. I mean, there are only 32 professional NFL sides and they only compete in one competition over the course of their season, so it's fairly easy for them compared to our 92 Football League sides all competing in at least three competitions! Nevertheless, your point is well taken, 03md, and we do need to create some semblance of consistency. – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point about the difference between US and English sporting articles - it just seems strange that we don't yet have at least stubs for the 92 teams (plus conference) for 2009-10, four months into the season. 03 md 09:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

With American sports, every single team in a major league (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL and even MLS) is of comparible size to a Premier League team. You just can't compare the likes of Histon with Minnesota Wild, or even Watford with the financial power of a franchise such as the Toronto Maple Leafs. A more reasonable comparison is to the coverage of the Premier League, Championship, Serie A, La Liga and the Bundesliga versus the five American ones. WFCforLife (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, on a partially related note, I've been going through old season articles and updating the seasonal navboxes and categories on English club's season articles. You can check out what I've got done so far at Category:English football club seasons by year. There are a ton of historical articles out there that still need to be created, even just among English club season articles; you can see how few club season articles that there are from even earlier this decade – only sixteen club season articles for 2002–03?!? If anyone wants to help out with my recent "mission" just let me know & we'll map out a plan of sorts. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

What should be in the lead? How long should it be? To be honest this is the bit I've struggled with most. WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As well as summarising the events of the season, the lead should explain the context of the season within the history of each club (e.g. "The 2009–10 season is Manchester United's 18th season in the Premier League, and their 35th consecutive season in the top division of English football.") When it comes to summarising the team's progress in each competition, I suggest only making a brief mention of their league position and their points total compared to teams around them, then we should say at what round they were eliminated from the cup competitions and by whom. Any major transfer activity should probably be mentioned, but only the club's very biggest transfers. Finally, I would suggest that we also mention any off-the-field goings-on, but not in any particular detail; the details should be saved for a separate section later on (unless said goings-on pertain directly to any one of the competitions the club was competing in). – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Prose

How long should it be? What level of detail do we go into? Do we mix on-field and off-field prose together, or do we go out of our way to separate transfer activity, notable off-field player incidents and boardroom activity from the football side? WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Another question I have concerning this topic is how to divide the prose. Should the prose have it's own section entirely, with match boxes seperated in different sections like last year's Chelsea article? Should the prose and match boxes be included in the same section together, divided by competition like the current Everton article? Should all lists of matches be separated from prose and condensed into a single table like the current Arsenal article? Should prose and match boxes be integrated and outlined on a month-by-month basis like the current Blackburn article? Should prose be seperated out from the match boxes and outlined on a monthly basis like the Ice Hockey Project does, such as in this Pittsburgh Penguins article? There is even more variation out there, but if we're trying to determine a consensus for manual of style then we have to consider the options. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Blackburn one is a great structure to use while writing an ongoing season article. But IMO that would not be the best way to leave a season article. It doesn't really follow a summary style and therefore wouldn't make GA standard as-is, but there is the potential for a truly excellent one to emerge with the right tinkering at the end of the season.

There are dozens of variations, but in essence I see the question over prose as being in two basic forms. Blackburn aside, it appears to be between splitting by competition (Premier League prose, Premier League results, FA Cup prose, FA Cup results, League cup prose etc), or having completely chronological prose with all competitions mentioned together. The reason I have gone for the prose being merged together is that one competition might affect another, but it would be wrong to explicitly try to point this out. By narrating the season in one go, we are leaving questions about priorities, fatigue, reasons behind a player's lack of goals etc down to the reader's interpretation, without the need to so much as mention them. WFCforLife (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After doing some research on other season articles that have already achieved WP:GA, I concluded that the prose are the most important part of the article. They should be the focus of the article over any stats and match results included in the article. This is also supported by the guidance in Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. Clear, well sourced prose are what make a good encyclopedic article and the stats should just supplement the information conveyed in the prose.

The WP:GA season articles all seemed to follow the same "trend" in layout where they have a background section discussing highlights of the previous seasons (especially any qualifiaction for leagues in the current season such as champions league, superliga, etc.) and then a review section where they have a month-by-month subsection going over the history/happenings of the season. Beyond that, there are sometimes one or two other sections, but it varies per article. With the 2010 MLS team season articles, I've tried to start each one off with the "background+review" section layout. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Results

Personally, I think it's up to editor discretion as to whether they use {{footballbox collapsible}} or a wikitable. What we should attempt to do is reach consensus on what each format should contain, and what information can be considered optional (as long as it is consistent). WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the date, opposition, venue and result are essential info. Goalscorers (and goal times where available) are probably on the cusp of being essential, as is the match attendance, but I know that attendances aren't always easy to come by and are rarely consistent. I like to add a column for the club's league position at the end of each of their league matches, but this should not be required by any means. In cup competitions, I also like to add a column to show the stage of the competition the match is at. – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a huge supporter of {{footballbox collapsible}}, but I'm not going to try to be a Nazi about it and declare that everyone must use it. I'd say PeeJay has it right on what is essential. The collapsible box allows for all of the suggested data, such as how it has currently been implemented at Everton F.C. season 2009–10#Europa League, even including the round of play in the left edge of the box. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I poured a lot of effort into creating and fine tuning {{footballbox collapsible}} so I'm obviously partial. I'm not interested in requiring anyone to use it though. It's just an elegant alternative to {{footballbox}} or creating your own tables. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I may as well ask here. Is there any way of making the collapsed version a bit narrower? WFCforLife (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) sorry, I meant height wise. I know of the size parameter, but it only seems to deal with width, not height. WFCforLife (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now it's as small as it can be without making the font smaller or messing with cellpadding (which I don't know how to do in wiki markup). You can have it had the one pixel wide bars on top and bottom and that would gain you two pixels per row. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Player statistics

Obviously I'm biased, but I genuinely believe that all of them should follow the format of Watford F.C. season 2009-10#Player statistics. I haven't seen anything that comes close. WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I quite like this section of the Watford article. It takes the best bits of the Man Utd stats sections and makes them even better with the sortability function! That said, I'm not a fan of the coloured cells, but they do help to accentuate the symbol annotations. Perhaps that element could do with some discussion. – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree there. O'Toole, Ellington and Gibson are all extremely different situations, as are Tamas Priskin and other departures. Perhaps the colour for loans in and first apperances should be kept, and others dropped? WFCforLife (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I really like that Watford player statistics table. Why don't you make a template out of it so we can have a standard stats table for footy clubs? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for someone to do it. I don't really know how. WFCforLife (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've drafted one at {{Football season player stats}}. There are optional parameters in there for an extra cup, playoffs and other matches, and I'll add continental in a while). I want to include country-specific options such as those in {{Football player statistics 2}}, but I haven't quite figured out how to do it yet. WFCforLife (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken the template to a level where I'm happy that it does a decent job with no glaring errors. The key is extremely messy though. If anyone feels they can modify it to look better, go for it. Now is probably as good a time as any to suggest additional features, even if it's a wish-list. WFCforLife (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to use a template for this? What's wrong with a simple wikitable? – Pee Jay 09:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. I'm not even sure if I'll use it myself. But it saves space, and is certainly more user-friendly. Also the documentation (which I haven't finished) might be helpful even for people who use a wikitable. WFCforLife (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with Watford F.C. season 2009-10#Player statistics too. I tried forever to get the two header rows and still have the table sortable before I gave up. You've pulled it off and it looks great. The remaining question is what stats should be included and how stats should be grouped. You've kept it simple by including appearances, goals, and cards only, but I've seen many articles go quite a bit farther. You've also decided to put the card information in the same table as the goals and assists, but not grouped them by competition. In 2009_Seattle_Sounders_FC_season#Statistics I added other stats starts, assists, birth date, and player acquisition information in the same table. I've also added a goalkeeper table with different stats for that position. Should we have some guidlines on this or just leave it open for editors to put what they want?

For English teams not in continental competition, it doesn't matter when you get your cards, as all the competitions are interchangeable. You can get suspended in the League and end up missing a Cup game. For teams playing continental competitions or other countries it may matter. I don't really have an opinion on what to do for them. In a handy segue, my suspensions table means that when a card triggers a suspension, the game that card occured in and the game(s) affected are mentioned. WFCforLife (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspensions

Should these be mentioned? For a standard article it's clearly a low priority, but if we are aiming for high quality GA or potentially FA material, it becomes harder and harder to argue against such a section.

I don't see any reason not to have a section for suspensions, but such a section would need to be standardised. For example, do we include managers' touchline bans as well as player suspensions? What columns are necessary? Is there any standard terminology that we should stick to? – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ferguson is the exception that proves the rule, but manager's bans are generally pretty rare. There's certainly discussion to be had on whether they should be mixed with players, but they should be mentioned. WFCforLife (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think anything notable that happens during the season (including suspensions) should be mentioned in the prose (and cited appropriately). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and finances

Do either or both of these need to be mentioned at all? Or should we generally only bother when there's something notable to write about, such as a takeover or the club going into administration? WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter is probably the case here. Unless something drastic happens with the club's finances/ownership status, there's no need to mention it. After all, there are still quite a lot of clubs that don't release annual financial figures. – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The latter suggestion sounds correct to me. I mean, how could you write a 2009–10 season article about Manchester City or Portsmouth yet not include information about finances, whether positive or negative? When there's information in the news then it is probably notable enough to include. When it's the same-old same-old, like at Everton, then it's probably not worth writing about. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

International appearances

See the Watford article for an idea of what I mean. Is it relevant at all? Is there a one size fits all rule here? Clearly Manchester United, Watford and the local pub team all have different needs. WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This section is not necessary under any circumstances, in my opinion. No offence meant, but it just seems like a chance for clubs to blow their own trumpets when they haven't got anything else to blow them about. – Pee Jay 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you say that (no offence taken), but the fact that (for instance) a better-than-goal-a-game player flies to Iran and then loses his way completely, or indeed that a large number of players earn their first ever callups in this particular season, is somewhat noteworthy. Maybe I've gone about it in entirely the wrong way, but managers at most clubs make a point of the impact international football has had on their season. It seems strange to omit it entirely, and too open to accusations of selectively mentioning it to attempt to incorporate it into the prose.

On an entirely inappropriate and unrelated note, whispers have been going around the Rookery that Jay DeMerit is going to join a certain injury stricken team on loan in January. Makes sense, at least they would then have one player capable of defending against Fernando Torres ;) WFCforLife (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion on this is the same as for suspensions. Don't create a special section for it, just include it in the "review" prose and source it appropriately. If it's notable include it. --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My argument holds for suspensions as well, but this seems more controversial so I'll keep the discussion here. The international calendar, injuries and suspensions are generally considered to have an impact on the course of a season. Injuries are somewhat difficult, because they're so hard to verify and quantify, but there's no such problem with internationals and suspensions. I'm not saying that we shouldn't mention any of these things in the prose. If they matter, clearly we should discuss them. But the danger of only including them in the prose is that the prose will be selective. A comprehensive table is indiscriminate. WFCforLife (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Anything I've missed?

Feel free to add new subsections as applicable. I just think doing it this way helps the discussion flow better, and at least raises the possibility of reaching consensus on something, if not everything. WFCforLife (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the link to the guidelines is here. It is not an official wp guideline but soccerholic created it as a basic outline of how the articles should work. We also have the previous discussions that I forgot about here and #Results display 03 md 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's probably 20 other things we could talk about that could be included in season articles. For anything missed here, my recommendation would be to include them in the prose of the article whereever possible (with citations of course). --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.