Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, I'd like to start reinforcing my total disappointment with those editors who discuss this initially by intentionally (as stated in the proposal discussion) do not warn the contributers to club season articles "due to possible resistancies from users who maintain such articles". I think that is disruptive, creating a separation between those editors who often access this talk and those who don't. I really hope that is not the common practice here.--ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Current proposal
So, with the participation of most of the contributers to club season articles, we could see if the original proposal has consensus or not. I've created a contra-proposal to show there is other ways to define this MoS.--ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm trying to invite as many contributers as possible.
Do not agree - There is much more good information to include in a club season article than the current proposal.--ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the proposal by Angelo, myself. The proposal ClaudioMB has made contains way too much useless information. In fact, I was planning on changing the Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 article so that it looks the same as the other Manchester United season articles (albeit perhaps with larger text, per the discussion). I'm sorry, but ClaudioMB's proposal looks like something you'd find in a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. - PeeJay 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Maybe some editors do not know, but Wikipedia also incorporates elements of almanac, as defined in Wikipedia:Five pillars. No wonder there isn't a Wikimanac.--ClaudioMB 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- But the season articles you created don't even look like they belong in an almanac. A lot of the information seems very generic, and rather unrelated to the season at hand. - PeeJay 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you specify those information you are talking about? Thanks. --ClaudioMB 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#STATS. --Angelo 17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that structure and articles are "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". Also, that structure and articles do not obstruct that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", it just a question of editors be aware of it and improve them. Last, those articles follow that "Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.". --ClaudioMB 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, what about FC Barcelona 2006-07 season? Your proposal is clearly inspired on what you did there, and that article is a cluttered repository for notable and non-notable statistics which often defy from the main subject. And, last but not least, where is the prose? --Angelo 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to say my propose is based on all articles listed here. As you can see there are some sections that are not used on FC Barcelona 2006-07 season and FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. FC Barcelona 2006-07 season was the first one I created, I haven't give any attention to it since the 2007-08 started, and yes need some improvement. I was always open for any discussion in the article's talk page. About the prose, yes, it needs some prose, I could try to do some later and I'll be very happy if someone also could contribute on that. Also, lost of club articles probably need more prose, but that doesn't make them unreadable or useless. --ClaudioMB 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, what about FC Barcelona 2006-07 season? Your proposal is clearly inspired on what you did there, and that article is a cluttered repository for notable and non-notable statistics which often defy from the main subject. And, last but not least, where is the prose? --Angelo 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that structure and articles are "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". Also, that structure and articles do not obstruct that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", it just a question of editors be aware of it and improve them. Last, those articles follow that "Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.". --ClaudioMB 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Just to clarify to Angelo and other editors: just entering a policy as argument is not a good way to do it, as explained here. ClaudioMB
- Unfortunately, this is not a "deletion discussion". --Angelo 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still useful here, otherwise how you expect editors understand others' point, without an explanation. If you think your argument is true, it will be not a problem to rationalize it. --ClaudioMB 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
--ClaudioMB 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - For clarification, I created FC Barcelona 2006-07 season and FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. All others were created by other editors based on FC Barcelona 2007-08 season and I am contributing to them.--ClaudioMB 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion - I'd like to propose to put aside those two proposal and start discussing the structure of the MoS. After that, a discussion about each section. That means, move the current content of MoS to a subpage and replace it with a structure that will be discuss here in the talk page. I'll try to invite every contributer to club season articles to participate. That could that long to find a final MoS, but, with all editors participating, it will receive more good ideas and the MoS will be better accept by the community.--ClaudioMB 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like an amalgamation of the two, Angelo's lacks some information (disciplinary record, results summary, results by round) that I would like to see in an article. Some information from Claudio's possibly isn't strictly necessary for a season review (formations, most frequent start), to make them optional is good. As for style, I think Claudio's Template for matches is excellent. Especially as it hides the details of the match which can be expanded. This removes the varied width of tables issue (with many scorers). I also like his results by round, and results summary templates. I personally don't really like Angelo's results table, but I do prefer his player details table over Claudio's - not sure if it has a template. I mainly edit the Argyle season and started to use Claudio's templates for convenience and consistency with other teams. Just my $0.02 Mphacon 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category
Should all club season articles be in a Category:Football (soccer) clubs season category, like Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2007-08 season? --ClaudioMB 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MoS tag
Maybe creating a tag to be posted on the top of all club season articles warning about this MoS and about the possible huge consequences to the article could be a great way to warn and invite editors.--ClaudioMB 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Process
I'd like to propose the following steps to define this MoS:
1. Categorize all club season articles in order to have all article that will be affected by this MoS easy to access;
2. Warn and invite editors on all club season articles;
3. Restart this MoS discussion by moving the current proposal to a sub page;
4. Start the discussion by the defining how should be the title;
5. Discuss the structure to be used;
6. Discuss the style to be used;
7. Discuss each section or group of sections.
--ClaudioMB 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
