Template talk:Infobox Football club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Infobox Football club page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2

	Association football Portal The article on Template Infobox Football club is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
NA	This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

About archives

Contents 1 InfoBox Header - F.C. inclusion 1.1 Subsectioning this 1.2 Discussion in the right place 2 Add Category 3 What code of football ? 4 Former names 5 Opinion poll for the clubname infobox parameter 5.1 Options 5.2 Votes 5.3 Discussion 5.4 For those opting for C 5.5 Conclusion 6 Choosing the Infobox clubname parameter rule 6.1 Proposed rule 6.2 Discussion 6.2.1 Views of MickMacNee 6.2.2 Views of The Rambling Man 6.2.3 Views of Sarumio 6.2.4 Views of EP 6.2.5 Views of Chris Cunningham 6.2.6 Views of Peanut4 6.2.7 Views of Koncorde 6.2.8 Views of Dweller 6.2.9 View of Richard Rundle ("fchd") 6.3 Proposal to close as no consensus 7 Problem with the strip box

[edit] InfoBox Header - F.C. inclusion

I've noticed a minority of club's Infoboxes include F.C. in the Header. The template clearly states that this should be the commonly used short form of the name (i.e. Dundee United, not Dundee United F.C.) and the template's example (Arsenal) leaves off the FC.

The Addition of this F.C. or in certain case "Football club": - can clutter the header - Is unneccesary as the FC is included in the article's title, the first sentence of most articles and is elaborated upon in the "Full Name" line of the Infobox. - Goes against the template's standard style which is to simply display the common name of the club. You wouldnt say I'm going to watch Portsmouth FC versus Blackpool FC" would you? - 95% of infobox headers follow the proper format, but the ramaining 5% erroneously include it. Most of the culprits are in the Scotish and English Leagues. - Lastly - surely placing the FC/Football after the name of the club in the InfoBox header completely negates the need for the "Full name" line of the InfoBox - It would simply be displaying the same information twice within a couple of lines!

The header should follow a standard (which has already been set as stated above), but this is being disputed when I change headers to correctly fall in line with the standard. I checked out the Championship clubs and 22 of the 24 clubs ommitted the FC but when i changed the two that included FC (Blackpool and Burnley), it was unjustifiably objected to and I was told to find consensus on the matter! Certain people werent happy with this change and deny that the Standard Template has any bearing on the matter and refuse to allow me to change certain headers to ommit the FC from their common short name.

I don't know why they can't see that a) If the standard template says something and i'm follwing the rules laid out by the template and strictly speaking not doing anything wrong, that its them that needs to find consensus as they are the people that want something different to whats been stated and don't agree with my edits.

b) Its surely easier to change (ie remove the FC) from a small minority of infoBox Headers so that they follw a standard than change an overwelming majority to actually include FC in the header.

I have stated many of the reasons above as to why I have made the edits but no one has really come up with any good or decent reasons as why I shouldn't other than they dont like me making mass edits and they personally don't like the FC being removed and then proceed to continually revert my edits, so I shall leave this here for a while and see what responses I get.

Regards, Sarumio (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect if you are going to accuse other editors of something, at least get your facts 100% right, rather tha stating something that is untrue. As one of the editors who regularly updates the Blackpool F.C. article I can categorically state that you were not "told to find consensus on the matter" on that article whatsoever. The only place that happened was on the footy project, where it was mentioned in general and with no direct relation to the Blackpool F.C. article. And what you call "ujustifiable objected to" was aother user who regularly edits the same article, pointing out that Blackpool is the name of the town, whereas Blackpool FC is the name of the town's football club. Ad "unjustifiably" is merely your opinion and not fact.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As one of the several observers of recent massive unilateral editing of Football templates by Sarumio a few observations. Sorry for the length and for being a bit patronsing in places but I have tried to be fair and address each issue in turn!

One big reason why you have “noticed a minority of club's Infoboxes include F.C. in the Header” is because you seem to have made it your personal mission in life to spend idle hours religiously working through each league major and minor and attempted to remove the F.C. In innumerable cases these changes have been reversed, sometimes several times. Before you commenced on what apears to be no more than an obsessive / compulsive mission of change for the sake of it, there was yes some inconsistency o doubt but at least there was in overall terms a balance between consistency and appropriate local customisation. What has been created is frankly a mess (and an irritated bunch of editors), which will have to be sorted out.

I would not dispute that in places your crude / naive / unilateral approach to changes may have in at least a few cases, by chance rather than design, struck on the a new version of the name which is valid one maybe also in common use by the club/ supporters etc but in many others all that has been put in place of the original heading is at best, just an alternative. None of these changes as far as I can tell were made with consultation on the teams’ talk pages, nor it seems with reference to the Clubs’ official or fans websites so at worst it has left the title which is of less utility than the original.

You say 95% of info boxes contain the ‘correct’ heading (not sure how one arrives at this stat, but I’ll waste not more kbs on this point!). Having probably made most possibly up to 95%(irony!) of these changes yourself this observation may be true but I dispute the word 'correct'. You refer to the template being set as stated above. I’ve checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs.

Whether this is what the consensus wants going forward is another matter which is already up for discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football page, however the MofS clearly includes F.C. at the moment. True the template 'here' which has Arsenal on it as an example does not. But unless as in the case of Arsenal the club name has a historical notability or colloquialism or has been appropriately discussed and customised by the regular editors, those who designed the original template must have had in mind a default position to include ‘F.C’. In other words this is not an excuse for a one person 'no FC's here' crusade!

........“Most of the culprits are in the Scottish and English Leagues”

(unusual turn of phrase!) I guess this is because most of your unilateral changes in these divisions have been reversed whilst the diversions you have made into the Welsh and Irish Leagues have been allowed to continue to date unreversed.

Reference is made to the Championship. A quick check of your contributions found that you have underestimated your own enthusiasm for changes in this League. I easily found at least 2/3 more they have changed (although since reverted once or more times). So although an interesting point not really quite as compelling an argument and if one were to look at your Division 1 or 2 changes I I guess I know why these were not mentioned, in evidence!

The only part of the contribution above I can agree with is the final paragraph. I think the answer for you lies in your own words.

…..”they dont like me making mass edits”

So true! As your approach to making edits have been against the spirit of how WP works. The place to discuss a mass change is on the project page not to unilaterally make changes, ignore other editors and treat their comments with disrespect by continually undoing their changes. I regret through your own actions you have lost all credibility, and what's worse when you don't like the answer you just go back to editing unilaterally again, not exactly how it works around here I would suggest.

…..“they personally don't like the FC being removed”

True again! “they” don’t so as there were more disagreeing with you than agreeing suspect until a new consensus is established that’s it.

It’s a real shame that you have gone about making your views about how these pages are designed by 1. making dozens and dozens ( well actually more than this) changes without consultation, 2. not adding a summary comment to their edits ( except when driven to do this), 3. responding to pleas to stop and discuss first on your user page by partial removal of constructive and critical comments and continuing to edit despite this.

However, I am pleased at last you have decided to articulate your ideas and despite being economical with the truth in places. I do congratulate you on eventually coming to your senses rather than resort to vigilantism. If there is any merit in yourr arguments then I am confident the WP community will support these, so far I am yet to be convinced any Template change is urgently required, instead let organic change happen as it is meant to evolve. Meantime all the remains is to revert all these other innapropriate changes! Tmol42 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• My point of view is that the infobox header should be the same as the article name, minus any disambigation needed. Therefore, include the F.C., A.F.C. or whatever else. - fchd (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For clarification

The parameter to which User:Sarumio refers as the infobox Header, and the one which the user has been changing, is the clubname parameter displayed above the club badge, which is described in the template documentation as "[T]he commonly-used name of the club". The template does not, as Sarumio claims in the first paragraph above, "clearly [state] that this should be the commonly used short form of the name". Struway2 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subsectioning this

I'd say that the Blackpool F.C. example discussed above proves the point that the FC is needed for disambiguation for a large number of clubs. If we agree that (if anyone disagrees with that, please do say so) the question is are we happy with the infoboxes being inconsisent or do we want all of them to include FC/AFC? I have an open mind. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the header should be the common name of the club, which to my mind generally does not include the FC/AFC..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, whilst you are entitled to your opinion of course, i don't think its been "proved" that just because a club doesnt have a suffix (other than F.C. like Blackpool), doesnt mean that it needs to be disambiguated from the name of the town. This is a flawed and very weak argument to my mind. The reader of the article will be fully aware that the inormation displayed in the infobox is about the Football club of, for example, Blackpool, not the town. The article's title includes the FC, the infobox displays the full name (as well as information about a football club, not a town) and the FC is again included in the opening line of nearly all football club articles. And clubs like, for example Tottenham Hotspur certainly don;t need the FC included in the infobox header. As ChrisTheDude just stated the common short name of the club does not include the FC suffix (and its the common short name that is required here as stated in the template Manual of Style) Thats the last I'll say on it. Regards. Sarumio (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As he says, assuming that the reader takes the time to properly read the article title, they will already be aware that the subject of the piece is Association football-based, so I can't see the need for the full title again in the infobox. A very strange person it is who would skip straight to an infobox to find out what they're reading about.

Also, if you compare Biography Infoboxes to the club variety, you will see that, in the former, the article name is not necessarily duplicated in the Infobox Header, e.g. article name Mike Riley (referee) does not call him that in the infobox header. It calls him Mike Riley. Further down, his full name is given as Michael Anthony Riley. So any disambiguation techniques should be discounted from naming conventions for infobox headers, in my opinion. After all, F.C. is only added to ensure no misunderstandings through ambiguity. Three separate components here - article name, known name, and given name.

And perhaps a different way of looking at it: (for example) when you say the words "Manchester United", what else would you think of - Manchester United Tramways, Manchester United Fisheries? Would you really expect to have to trot out "F.C." at the end to make your meaning understood? Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm persuaded. Any good arguments for retaining the FC/F.C. in the infobox header? --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a bit. There are far too few opinions here as yet. Give it forty-eight hours, in which time any editors who feel the need may also stand back. This is important enough to warrant as substantial a consensus as can be got, to avoid it rearing its head again within a short time. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to have uniform usage of F.C. in the infobox (or not) across all football articles. Obviously it is important that we include it in the article name, but not in the infobox. I would say that the common names of Manchester United, Sheffield Wednesday, Preston North End etc do not include FC, however there is an argument that teams such as Blackpool FC, Barnsley FC, etc are commonly refered to with the FC, so why can't we just use the names that are most common for each club on an individual basis rather than trying to put square pegs in round holes? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What Dan1980 said. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that the infobox heading match the article title. Blank F.C. is the "short name" for Blank Football Club, is it not? - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree with Dudesleeper - the F.C. variant is my favourite for the header in the infobox - to match the name of the article (less any disambiguation needed for clubs of the same name). Sarumio is still removing the F.C. where he/she finds them by the way, at least two today. - fchd (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Manchester United F.C. is not the short name for Manchester United as discussed above. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're implying it's the common name, then we should change Tottenham's infobox header to Spurs. As for only including F.C. in some infoboxes, that's against the spirit of consistency that we aim for in football articles. Besides, you stated above that "I would say that the common names are..." While your opinion is valued, it's not something we should base our editing on. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not implying that we should put Spurs as the header in Tottenham Hotspur's infobox. The guidelines for the template state:

"shortname — A commonly-used abbreviated name for the club."

"nickname — The club's most common nickname."

so clearly we would have Tottenham Hotspur in the shortname field and Spurs in the nickname field.

As for having consistency across all football club articles, I agree that it's important for article names, but not for the short name in the infobox. After all, every club is different, so it would be impossible to have total consistency across all club articles. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

When compared to the full "Manchester United Football Club", the F.C. variant IS the short name. Otherwise, why isn't the article actually at [[Manchester United]]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)

How often do you hear the term "Manchester United F.C." compared to "Manchester United"? The guidelines state "A commonly-used abbreviated name for the club", which is obviously the latter phrase. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think the common name/short name of the club includes FC regardless of what the club is called. You can see that the club is preceded by FC by looking at the Full name of the club where it says Blank (Association) Football Club! You dont here people say "Yeah i support Barnsley FC", they say "I support Barnsley", or "Did you see Blank FC beat Blank FC last night?". Again when they read out the classified results no club is read out with FC after its name incase people think that Man Utd were playing the entire town of Barnsley for instance, instead they say "Manchester Utd 2 Barnsley 2" for instance. The short name of any club is just those words that precede the "(Association) Football Club" tag. Sarumio (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You dont here (sic) people say "Yeah i support Barnsley FC"

Actually you do. Quite often when a club doesn't have a second (and maybe third etc) name such as United or City their fans will refer to them as Blank F.C. rather than just using the name of the town or city where they are based. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Still can't get my head around why you would ignore the article title when it comes to the infobox. Personal opinions are getting in the way of common sense. Maybe some of the above editors are looking at club logos for guidance. For example, if the next Man United logo (like the one from the 1960s and early '70s) includes F.C. or Football Club, does the infobox get changed to align with it? Seems a tad transient to me. - Dudesleeper / Talk 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article title includes FC for disambiguation purposes only. The infobox header is inside the actual article (after the title of the article (and the first line of the text) establishes that FC follows the club's name), so theres no need to re-iterate that a Football club has FC after its name! We've already gathered that much. We want the common name of the club and in almost all circumstances this will not include FC as I've made clear above. Quite where you get the idea that anyone has mentioned a club's logo is lost on me - as far as I know - you're the first one to have mentioned club logos! And you talk of common sense - to include FC in the header is practically displaying the full name of the club, which the infobox contains anyway, below the common name of the club! Displaying information twice is illogical. Sarumio (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was mentioned here actually, by Brollachan, which is why I brought it up. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dudesleeper, I'll repeat my view from earlier to help you see why article titles don't get repeated in the infobox:

"...if you compare Biography Infoboxes to the club variety, you will see that, in the former, the article name is not necessarily duplicated in the Infobox Header, e.g. article name Mike Riley (referee) does not call him that in the infobox header. It calls him Mike Riley. Further down, his full name is given as Michael Anthony Riley. So any disambiguation techniques should be discounted from naming conventions for infobox headers, in my opinion."

Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that F.C. is a disambiguation. It was an abbreviation when I was at school. And if we're talking common sense, someone with an ounce of intelligence wouldn't put (referee) or the like in the infobox header. - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_Football_club#Opinion_poll_for_the_clubname_infobox_parameter MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion in the right place

Someone corrct me if wrong, but is this discussion even in the right place? I would think this page is for discussion of the template, not what you put in it? From what I've seen, this discussion has been had before on WP:FOOTBALL, as even the inclusion of dots is disputed per club names, and comes down to local usage. I suggest this is moved to wp:football for wider input. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean discussion about what the common name of a club is, the issue of whether the header is the common name, full name, or a.n. other is of course relevant to the template. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing specifically the use of the header within the template. Template Talk is never reserved solely for discussion about technical application of the template. The above topic is valid here. But feel free to open it also at WP:FOOTBALL. Ref ^(chew)(do) 09:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add Category

Category:Football (soccer) clubs established in {{{founded}}} Gnevin (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not good to do since many articles have more text than just the year in that field. – Elisson • T • C • 11:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Crap , your right would need to added a yearfounded or something similar to the box Gnevin (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What code of football ?

As this is an international encyclopedia, and there are many codes of football, shouldn't this template state what type it represents ? Association ? If it is intended to be general, then how about adding a code variable ? Pages displaying this don't seem to bother about telling readers what flavour of football the team plays, yet this sort of info is what the encyclopedia exists for, its not a fanzine. Rcbutcher (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Former names

Some clubs changed their names several times in their history, wouldn't it be better to have a field in this infobox for former names? bogdan (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see some merit in this, I think it would be suitable in some cases but not others. Straightforward renamings like Swansea Town -> Swansea City would be OK, but less simple cases would be better explained in full in the text, like VfB Stuttgart for example, who were formed from a merger of two clubs. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion poll for the clubname infobox parameter

[edit] Choosing the Infobox clubname parameter rule

Per the closed discussion [8] above, we appear to have consensus for having a loose rule for what form the club name parameter for the football club infobox takes, with exceptions to the rule to be settled later on an individual basis. The club common name is and will be debatable in some cases, this is not a bad thing, but neither is having a general rule. This view imo is supported by the adoption of option C in the previous debate. The rule will be an unambiguous starting point, from which desired differences should be taken up on individual article talk pages, and settled in the normal way with consensus. So, this discussion is to lay out and agree the content of the rule. If one is agreed, editors, without prejudice to any other wikipedia rules and policies, should then imo feel free and justified to maintain any infobox in line with the rule decided (and it would be helpful if they refer any new users to it), or to maintain an overiding consensus subsequently demonstrated on the talk page (again it would be helpfull to refer people to the principle already agreed above).

So, the way I see it, to decide this rule, the issues are:

• UK/world use - we need some input from other countries, as discussion has centred on UK club names so far
• What is the common name of a club?
• Inclusion of F.C / 'Football Club' / or whether this is needed at all. As far as I can see, the previous arguments for inclusion centre on cases like Barnsley, where the removal creates an ambiguous term. There are also cases like Bradford, with two clubs possibly being called Bradford commonly.
• Use of common abbreviations, from common ones like Hearts and Wolves, to the more extreme such as 'Man Utd'.
• Per above, use of abbreviations for United etc.
• Any others that arise in discussion

MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rule

I propose to keep this section as a placeholder for the proposed rule, to be presented in short bullet point style. If anyone sees non-minority support (i.e. more than 2 editors propose it) for a particular point to be included emerging in the discussion, fell free to add it, but let's not get carried away with an edit war. For disputed positions, we can add each point without obscuring others, and settle it on a resolution type vote, where support for each point can be demonstrated. I propose then moving to an unnoposed adoption of one or more points, and/or commencement of any disputed votes, to commence in one week. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I missed the initial exchanges, I should have said, despite my title header below, this discussion isn't meant to be along exclusive non replied sections like an arbcom, the discussion should be like anywhere else, but of course, fixed to the topic at hand, bolded above, to aid reading. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of MickMacNee

Now, my opinion on these is as follows:

• I have no clue about foreign club names, suffice to say some are very long, and what works for the UK may not be appropriate for other countries.
• The rule should state for UK clubs that FC/Football Club is not needed in the infobox for the commmon club name parameter, either as part of the common usage of the name of a club, nor as a disambiguation from other articles, or lesser clubs. This is already stated in the lead, and the article title. It should be clear to any reader that the name at the top of the infobox is for a football club. This can also be seen in the Italian example of Lazio and S.S. Lazio, where the parameter is still 'Lazio'.
• Certainly for UK clubs, we should make the rule that the common name is the full, un-shortened name minus FC/Football Club, i.e. Manchester United, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Heart of Midlothian. I think that, while it will be debated in some cases, this is an easier starting point than if we were to try to draw up a rule to fit all possible cases right now. I.e. the debates that will no doubt ensue, are better focused on the actual club articles in question, without the distraction of using other clubs infoboxes or the actions of other editors on other articles as a defence for edits on that article. A glaring case as I see it will be Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon.
• If anyone overlooks anything, and common patterns of opposition emerge on talk pages, there is nothing to stop anyone then re-opening this discussion to ammend the rule, if there is an obvious pattern emmerging. Infact, urging people to ammend this rule in that case is always going to be preferable to edit warring over many articles.

MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of The Rambling Man

• Just a quick one before I express my views more comprehensively. Mick, you've chosen three good examples of where the common name would not be the name of the town/city in which the club is situated. I wonder if a variation on the ruling ought to deal with clubs which, having removed the FC, all you're left with is the name of the town/city, for instance, Bury F.C.
  • It's my view above that in these cases, with the lead text sentences, and by having F.C. in the article name, I can't see a need to even create a special disabiguation clause for FC in the case of Barnsley etc. But, I guess it wouldn't do any harm if others realy want it included, as it's pretty clear what the special criteria would be - is there an article name that could conflict? But even for this, I can only point to the Lazio case, the parameter being just Lazio doesnt seem to cause issues there (I had a veyr quick look at the talk page). MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Also interested that to see your choice of common names for WWFC isn't Wolves and for HoM isn't Hearts! I think that'll come under "what is a common name?" The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Accepted, I agree Hearts and Wolves would have a good case for shortening the common name from the official name, but I couldn't see any initial rule that could allow this straight off without causing issues elsewhere. I looked at the Wolves official site, and even they interchange it, so a wider discussion, centred on Wolves, and not dragging other clubs into it, would be best, imo. I am thinking that the majority of clubs won't be like this. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Since the definition (in the infobox) of this parameter is the "commonly-used name of the club" then we already enter a world of subjectivity. What's common for me is not common for someone else, particularly not for someone who isn't English, British, European etc. Perhaps the core of the problem is the definition of this parameter. I'd like to explore what this parameter actually adds to the infobox when you have fullname and nickname. In my world, the commonly-used name of some clubs are as follows: Ipswich Town F.C. -> Ipswich, Manchester United F.C. -> Man U, F.C. Internazionale Milano -> Inter Milan, West Bromwich Albion F.C. -> West Brom, etc. I think the biggest problem is the grey area between what we all think "common name" means and what "nickname" means. I wouldn't, for example, consider West Brom a nickname, it is (to me) a common name for the club. Can anyone provide a good reason for the existence of the parameter? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Its because of the conflicting view that we are trying to install a best fit rule. Minus FC seems to fit that criteria the best, without playing around with the Non-FC suffixes of clubs (i.e. Rovers, City, United etc). When a classified check of results are read out on a saturday afternoon in Britain they read out the full name of the club minus the FC. This would appear to be the safest way of shortening a club's name down to its common variety without any conflict. i.e. Wolverhampton Wanderers 3 Manchester United 2, Portsmouth 2 Tottenham Hotspur 2. Sarumio (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. What benefit does this parameter bring to the infobox? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And just because Tim Gudgeon drops the FC I'm not sure that gives you carte blanche to assume it's the "safest way" (whatever that means) to shorten a club name. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your missing the point, that was just one example of how an official media source (like most) refers to clubs in a standard format with a defined rule for how clubs should be read out or displayed in a table - i.e. they simply omit only the unnecessary FC/AFC part of a club's official name! We're after a rule here (not debating the need for the parameter again btw) and that seems like as good a rule as you're going to get - for English clubs anwyay. Sarumio (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to get a little sick of you telling me what I can and cannot discuss. You're not in charge of this discussion and it's open for all. You feel obliged to respond to everyone that's contributed here so far to the point of obsession. I'm interested in what this parameter brings to each article. In my opinion nothing but subjective argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, calm down, theres no need for that! Why do you have to get so personal. I wasn't telling you what you can and cant discuss, what is your problem! Sarumio (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm, I'm not the one punctuating my text with capitals and exclamation marks. You're telling me we're "not debating the need for the parameter again" and telling Chris below that he's discussing something which you considered had been excluded in the "poll". Just try putting positive contributions here e.g. what is the point of the parameter? instead of continually questioning other people's opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stop trying to cause arguments Rambling Man! Sarumio (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I simply pointed out where you told me what I could and couldn't discuss. And where you told Chris what he shouldn't be discussing. All you seem to be doing is criticising other people's opinions. Can you please (for the third time of asking) explain what you think the benefit of this parameter is? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As I commented before, I'm not here to debate whether we need the parameter or not, this discussion is to establish what part of a clubs name should be included in it. Also I didnt tell Chris what he can or cant discuss, from his comments I was unsure if he had seen the original poll so just enlightened him as what he had said ammounted to option A - which we've moved on from in fairness! He's free to discuss it of course, i didnt demand he shut up did I! Sarumio (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For the fourth time can you explain the point of the parameter? This stage of discussion does not preclude ideas being mooted, nobody's "moved on", so presumably you're happy to discuss why you think we need the parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have I not made myself clear enough yet! You cant force opinions out of me, i do not wish to discuss with you the need for the parameter, I've already told you this twice, stop pestering! Sarumio (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of this thread is to discuss the various options, not just to give head counts. If you're not prepared to give a rationale for your arguments, there's little point expressing them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that both of us would rather you stopped trying to short-circuit the discussion. It took the better part of five years to finalise the football/soccer/association football debate, after all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Sarumio

• Completely agree with MickMacNee

Sarumio (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of EP

• I'm going to concentrate on South American & Mexican clubs, being my areas of expertise. I'd say in most cases, the best option would be to go with the club name minus any Club Atlético, Club Social y Deportivo, Club de Futbol.... There are some cases like UNAM Pumas where its tough to determine the common name, in cases such as these I'd suggest a requirement for talkpage discussion before changes are made. In cases like Club Atlético Tucumán the club are commonly known as Atlético Tucumán, but in the majority of cases Atlético River Plate or Atlético Banfield would be completely wrong. I'd strongly suggest that people who have had little or no involvement in Wikipedia's coverage of football in South America, Italy, Spain, Asia or wherever do not take any decision made here as licence to go around making mass edits to impose their idea of what the clubs common names should be.
• I would also say that for British teams, F.C. should only be removed from Barnsley, Blackpool, etc, and only added to Doncaster Rovers, Bristol City etc with talkpage consensus. I also want to reiterate that disputes should be debated on the talkpage. I believe that any repeat of the trivial edit warring and mass reversions we saw before, from parties who are aware of this debate, should be considered disruptive editing and result in blocks or even subject bans. English peasant 16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I might not have understood correctly here, but are you proposing the rule re. FC be: include FC only where there's no 'rovers', 'united' etc? MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm also a little confused - if its like Mick says, then why does Barnsley need FC and not Bristol City. If however you're saying nothing can be edited without individual talk page consensus then that is Option D on the original poll which we didnt vote for! If you could just clear up what you meant...Sarumio (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify my point: The issue is too trivial, mass edits to add F.C. or remove it add no factual content to the encyclopaedia. People who are inclined to make lots of edits should probably spend their time updating player stats (and pc/nt update parameters), if not this that then fix some misinformation, put some appropriate categories on articles, find references or external links for unreferenced articles, fix broken wikilinks, fix links to dab pages like Defender or overview pages like Football. Mass edits to add F.C. or remove it add no factual content or utility. Any potentially controversy over what the common name is should be resolved on talkpages. Manchester United should be Manchester United, (not Man Utd or Man U), but if the majority of the contributors to the Man U article want it to read Manchester United F.C. and make a reasonable case on the talkpage, then so be it. Hearts and Wolves are tricky, I'd be inclined to go with the short version, but having made no substantial contribution to either page, or to any of their players, its best left with club fans and regular contributors to Scottish and Championship football, just like I'd expect Hearts and Wolves fans to leave the Argentinos Juniors article alone, unless they care to actually add some information, then they would be more than welcome. The lack of common sense and perspective here is frankly astonishing. In summary whatever the outcome, no more mass edits of a trivial nature please. EP 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Chris Cunningham

I haven't been involved in the discussion thus far, though I have been guilty over the years of de-piping UK club links (adding the F.C. back in) whenever I've seen them over the years. I personally reckon we should use the "full abbreviated" version (e.g. Rangers F.C., FC Barcelona) in all but heavily repeated use, so they should definitely be used in the infobox. I don't see that dropping parts of the name really makes the boxes more readable or otherwise informative, and I think that keeping the letters is the appropriate level of formality for generally addressing clubs on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this effectively constitutes what Option A set out in the original poll and it was voted against! Sarumio (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the original poll was particularly clear, to be honest. What I see as option A is "don't have this poll at all". Option B just says "define a standard", which doesn't preclude option A from being a choice for the standard. Anyway, as I understand it this was an informal discussion, not a "poll", and even RfCs have to be open for a month, so I thought I'd point out what my position was even though there was sorta-kinda a sorta-kinda consensus to have another debate after the original discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Peanut4

• I'd choose a team's official name less any F.C. / A.F.C. I'm not sure what to do with foreign equivalent, such as SS Lazio or Lazio. But for British clubs, I'd go along with Arsenal, Bury, Barnsley, Rangers, Manchester City, Manchester United, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Hearts of Midlothian. Peanut4 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  Why? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  At current the infobox has a entry for the full name, and the full name is repeated in the first four/five words of the entry. Plus the name is X F.C. Somewhere at the entry ought to know it's the football team entry. How many times do we need to repeat football club? Peanut4 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a byproduct of having a sport-related name. It's not like sport in America, where we would be able to say Arsenal Braves are an English football club... For this reason, I don't see why we should forego repetition and make the infobox any different from the main article. Plus, with an image of a shiny club crest or badge catching our eyes when we are first taken to a club article, the eye is likely to see the infobox header first, so all the more reason to INCLUDE THE DAMN F.C./A.F.C. Sorry... - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a very fair point. But in such a case then, we should be having Arsenal Football Club, Manchester United Football Club, Leeds United Association Football Club, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As what, the article title? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between formality and forced verbosity. "Arsenal F.C." is still the club's formal name. "Arsenal" isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But no-one said it has to be the club's formal name. That's already in the infobox below anyway. I'm going to repeat myself here, even when that's the opposite of the point I'm try to get across, but how many times do we need to tell the reader this is a football club we're talking about? As few as possible. If we want to put that in the top of the infobox, I'd go the whole hog, and remove the fullname in the main body of the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're somewhat making your own point. Abbreviating football club to F.C. means one less football club repetition. The prose/main article has formal name (in article title) and full name (in lead section), so why can't we have the two appearing in the infobox? It is supposed to be a summary of the main article after all (I thought). - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have more than that. Arsenal's entry basically says in the article title, the first paragraph, and infobox, that the club (and article) is a football club a total of six times. Total overkill to me. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Going round in circles here. How would you avoid the repetition, given that their name includes football club and they are a football club? Koncorde initially brought up the repetition thing, but I haven't seen an alternative article intro like I requested a while ago. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Don;t shoot me down here, but is this not deteriorating into a replica of the previous (now archived) discussion which we debated for over a week. It seems to me the people who voted A are now in this dicussion, still talking about the club name being the same as the article name. Nothing new is being said, its all been said before and was rejcted by way of a vote. What was the point in the previous poll if this is all you are going to do? There are certain people airing their thoughts in here which have nothing to with what MickMacNee set this seperate discussion up for - Option C was voted for yet its now getting twisted back into Option A by certain people! Sarumio (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't anyone tell you polls are bad? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And Mick's third "issues" bulletpoint (before he stated your views for you) is "Inclusion of F.C / 'Football Club' / or whether this is needed at all." - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. But Unfortunately there isn't much alternatives to the intro. I can think of removing one instance of the word "club" from the Arsenal intro. But just having the infobox title as Arsenal (and not Arsenal F.C.) removes one. As does having it as Arsenal Football Club, and removing that line from the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Koncorde

I agree with Peanut above. Should "Wolverhampton Wanderers" be Wolves? Well, that'll ultimately be up to the editors of that particular article if there's a feeling it's required. Ultimately I prefer the idea of avoiding repeating ourselves as much as possible. I also feel that the "F.C." is redundant in all but a few cases. Adding it (as Cunningham suggested) to "Rangers" is...well, odd. But it seems the collective over there wish for it to be present (or it has never been challenged).

I also agree with English Peasant with regards to foreign clubs (i.e. non European) where an element of intuition and knowledge of the subject is required to make genuine edits that aren't simply trying to conform to a standard that really doesn't work. Certainly the blanket application of "name of topic" to the header box would have been interesting in say, for instance, Spain. Where teams such as Athletic Bilbao aren't actually Athletic Bilbao any more than Rangers are "Glasgow Rangers".

Teams such as SS Lazio, A.C. Milan...well you could argue against the SS, or AS (such as for Roma), but the A.C. obviously is essential. In the end the individual cases are there to be discussed on the individual boards.--Koncorde (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C" is obviously the club's full name. "Wolves" is the abbreviation. Dropping the "F.C." from the full name is just a bastardisation; just because they don't read it out on the pools results doesn't mean that's how the club should be referred to. I agree with The Rambling Man that the need for a special parameter for such in the infobox is questionable. I believe in addition that it is ill-advised to refer to a club by an informal name by default in articles; Even in the context of an article about Wolverhampton, for instance, I'd expect an encylopedia to present information in the form "the town's largest football club is Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C" and not just "Wolverhampton Wanderers" as a matter of formality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So in your view are nevigation bars at the bottom of a football club article's page "bastardising" a clubs name by ommitting the FC (at present it lists all the other teams in the same division as the club your viewing, with their full name minus the "F.C."). Look at the league table in the "Premiership 2007-08" article. Are all 20 club names in that table being bastardised becuase they omit FC? Should FC be added to each and every club in that table? Thats the only part of their full name thats missing afterall? Its the same with Lists of champion club of a division in a division's article and many many more examples where its just the full name of the club minus the F.C. so your claim that leaving it out on the Infobox header "bastardises" the clubs name, in my personal opinion, doesnt hold up! Either that or its being done on a very grand scale and you're choosing to ignore it! Sarumio (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's an argument for removing the "F.C." in special cases where space is limited, such as in navboxen, or in specific instances where a social norm allows for it (such as results tables or league standings). In other circumstances, yes, I'd argue that chopping it off is being needlessly informal. As for being done on a grand scale, I think the canonical example here is football (soccer); we never had a proper discussion, a handful of editors basically kept it enforced based on the claim that it was the established norm, and it was only when we had an extensive formal discussion that we could finally stop bickering about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I made a comment about how much this idea missed the point, but apparently it wasn't quite loud enough. - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the encyclopedias I have, none use the full name - admittedly because most are football encyclopedias that don't feel the need to repeat constantly "Football Club" or "F.C." but the point remains. If you think saying "The largest football club in the city is Wolverhampton Wolves F.C." then you're basically repeating F.C. for the sake of?

In the end my issue remains not simply with the infobox, but with an awful lot of poor 'intros' to clubs and repeated information/terms that add nothing.

Don't really want to keep bringing individual cases up, but Wolves are generally dealt with sans F.C. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I can understand its inclusion in the header, and even its inclusion in the opening sentence to explain the F.C. But I don't get why either the infobox needs to repeat itself so much, or why the article does - or (as is generally the case) they all repeat themselves. Stylistically it's amateurish.--Koncorde (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, unless we're willing to have the introductions be: Manchester United are a football club in Manchester, England..., we're stuck with the occupational hazard. So, for the third or fourth time now, what would your (more sensible) intro be? - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the issue is more with the ones that repeat ad-hoc everything. Do we really need to say "Barnsley Football Club are an English Football Club, in Barnsley, England. They currently play in the Football League Championship." etc etc. Personally I feel a lot of the information does not require jamming into the opening 2 lines. "Manchester United are a football club based in Manchester, England" isn't a bad start by any stretch of the imagination. However personally I'd like to see it be more specific. Something such as: "Manchester United are an English Football Club based in Stretford, Greater Manchester. They have played their home games at the 76,212 capacity Old Trafford stadium since 1910. The team were a founder member of the Premier League and have so far won the title the most of any team since its inception." noting of course that I haven't read the Manchester Utd article or have any idea how it currently reads. In most cases you already have the article title saying F.C. and a subheading giving the full name Football Club, you then have at least 3 repeats of Football, League, England or combinations there-of, not counting town, location and stadium or combinations thereof.

For instance, in one encyclopedia I have Mansfield are described thusly: "Mansfield Town. English football club, nicknamed the Stags. The Stags, based at the Field Mill ground, were founded in 1910 as successors to Mansfield Wesleyans (formed in 1891). They were elected to the League, as members of the Third Division (South) in 1931 at the seventh attempt." Succint, direct and not up its own bum trying to cram everything in for the sake of piping to every wiki on the web and/or dumbing down the art of actually joining the dotted lines.

Many articles start with full frontal assaults of gibberish that barely warrants being called "English" for its almost foreign use of the language.--Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was almost on board until that last sentence. - Dudesleeper / Talk 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You should try reading some of them:

• Arsenal Football Club (also known as Arsenal, The Arsenal or The Gunners) are an English professional football club based in Holloway, North London. They play in the Premier League and are one of the most successful clubs in English football, having won thirteen First Division and Premier League titles and ten FA Cups.

• Birmingham City Football Club is a Premiership English professional football club based in the city of Birmingham. Formed in 1875 as Small Heath Alliance, they became Small Heath in 1888, Birmingham F.C. in 1905, finally becoming Birmingham City F.C. in 1943.[2] They currently play in the Premier League, the top tier of English football, which is the level at which they have spent the majority of their history.[3]

• Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside. Liverpool plays in the Premier League, and is the most successful club in the history of English football, having won more trophies than any other English club. They have won a record 18 English League titles, although the last time they won the title was in 1990. Liverpool have won five European Cups, an English record. Only A.C. Milan and Real Madrid have won Europe's premier club competition more times. They have won the FA Cup and League Cup seven times. Liverpool have played at Anfield since they were founded in 1892. However, plans have been formed to start work on a new 60,000 all reserved seat stadium, which could be raised to 80,000 depending on planning permission, in the summer of 2010 near Stanley Park. The new stadium will be funded by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who became the club's owners on February 6, 2007. Liverpool have a large and diverse fanbase, who hold a string of long-standing rivalries with several other clubs; the most notable of these is with neighbours Everton, with whom they regularly contest the Merseyside derby. Liverpool have a fierce rivalry with Manchester United, due to the success of both clubs, as well as their proximity to each other. The club's fans have been involved in two major disasters. At the Heysel Stadium disaster, 39 Juventus F.C. fans died when a wall collapsed after crowd trouble in the 1985 European Cup Final, and the Hillsborough Disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans lost their lives.

The concept of paragraphs apparently doesn't exist for the Liverpool article, and others are chronic in their consistent repeat of information in a way that I could only describe as they've been put together by a someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of football, but the writing skills of a first year senior. Others look like they have been written by a Belgian, or someone from Holland with grammatical errors or sentence structure I've really only ever seen used by them (like the repeated use of qualifiers and stilted sentence structure).--Koncorde (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the extra Premiership that found its way into Birmingham City F.C. It resulted from half-corrected vandalism which I must have missed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Liverpool intro is indeed terrible, not from a repetition of football club, etc. standpoint but from a Liverpool standpoint. As for the others, I think we'll agree to disagree that some repetitions can be avoided. - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(re-inset) You questioned my final sentence related to them not being written in English. I qualified it. It is still entirely possible to write an article intro without overusing statements. Currently too many articles follow an A B C policy in an extremely poor way. The other two are random articles selected that would repeat Football/Football Club etc a minimum of 3 times within the space of a sentence + the usage within the article header and infobox on two seperate occasions. Or in the case of Arsenal, manage to repeat the club name 3 times in the space of 10 words at the start of the article. Visually that means Arsenal currently reads like "(article)Arsenal F.C. (infobox) Arsenal F.C. Arsenal Football Club, Arsenal, The Arsenal or The Gunners, (infobox) Arsenal Football Club, (infobox) The Gunners, English Football, Premier league, English Football, Premier League. Classy.--Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to rewrite the intros over the course of the close-season in the manner that you have inside your head and in the manner that obviously eludes other editors. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is going to be my last comment on this, because it's getting plain daft. But I agree with you, that we can't change "Manchester United Football Club are a football club based in Manchester, ..." What we can do is try and keep down the number of times we say F.C. or Football Club after that to a bare minimum. Peanut4 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How does that affect the infobox, which usually precedes the article's prose? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought the article was meant to segue. Currently it jars.--Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Views of Dweller

This is a wearisome and tendencious argument. The point being discussed is so bizarre and silly that when it's complete, I'm definitely going to add it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. What bothers me far more than whether all/none or some clubs have "FC" in their infobox is the aggressive and hectoring attitudes being struck here, telling people what they can and can't discuss and using inappropriate tone. I no longer care what is decided, but care passionately about how it is decided. Life is too short to edit war and row about a pair of initials in an infobox. Let me remind you that whatever you write here is being recorded for posterity ... and may end up being lampooned at Lamest edit wars. Or worse. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As Chris mentioned, it took five years to hash out the association/football/soccer thing, so grab a beer and kick up your heels. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind how long it takes for this to sort itself out, just I greatly dislike the tone of some of the contributions above (and elsewhere on this topic). I mean, for goodness sake, getting heated about a pair of initials. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the majority are just getting heated about a certain individual who latches onto the views of those who support him, rather than make his own. That aside, I think there are enough editors of note involved to make the discussion hold some value. - Dudesleeper / Talk 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View of Richard Rundle ("fchd")

My view remains that the infobox header should basically be the same as the article name, so in most English cases include F.C. or A.F.C. - dropping any disambiguation needed to split articles that aren't actually part of the name (e.g. Wellington (Somerset) F.C. will just be Wellington F.C.) Furthermore, while doing some updates to Northern Counties East League clubs yesterday I did some edits to club names in the infobox, one of which I replicated in the header (which I didn't really mean to do while the discussion continues), and User:Sarumio reverted almost immediately. - fchd (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to close as no consensus

In relpy to a comment from Samurio at my talk page, I replicate here. I had thought based on the previous discussion there was agreement on this issue to proceed with a rule 'C' just for the infobox, but it seems that old issues have re-emerged, and people who weren't around for the original poll disagree with the direction of this process, and want to open it to a general debate. For the record I have no problem with any of this, but I thought it prudent to point out that its been 4 days since the proposal, and I don't see any consensus for a rule 'C' emerging at all. As such, I can only see a close as no consensus outcome, and whatever that brings for wikipedia, be it stalemate or opening a proper wider debate. Me, as per others above, I find it trivial to be beyond the banal to discuss this infobox parameter any further than where we are/aren't now, (i.e I do have a clear opinion on rule C that I think is sensible, but I'm not willing to be banned for it), so I suggest, if no-one moves significantly in a couple of days, I think this particular discussion is dead in the water, and should be closed as such, lest it be orphaned in wiki ambiguity (I hate it when that happens). Anyway, that's my thoughts on it, agree/disagree/ignore as appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple resolution to this debate to request all parties to desist from making changes to the parameter without simultaneously making a substantial edit to the article in question. I don't give a sh*t if the parameter oscillates between xxxx and xxxx F.C. as long as each time it happens, the article undergoes an update, improvement, expansion, tidy or gets an additional reference. Feel free to oppose or support below. EP 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason RfCs stay open for a month and not a week. Despite the triviality of the subject, this will hit upwards of 800 articles on British teams alone. And consensus is not just a head count; there have to be arguments to back the proposals up. I'd rather it were left open for a while. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the strip box

I use MSIE7, and I've noticed that on the strips pictures, the colour of the shorts extends to a horizontal line between shorts and jersey for roughly 3/4 the strip size in each direction (see picture). Does anyone else see this, or is it just me? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)