Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject on Football
Main pages
Main project talk
Task forces and sub-projects talk
Football portal talk
New articles talk
Cleanup articles talk
Football AID
Article improvement drive talk
  Previous collaborations talk
  Featured collaborations talk
  Previous nominations talk
Football Assessment
Assessment Department talk
  Assessment log talk
Manual of style
Club articles talk
  Club templates talk
National team articles talk
  National team templates talk
National association articles talk
  National assn. templates talk
Competition articles talk
Match articles talk
Player articles talk
Stadium articles talk
Other
Category structure talk
Notability criteria talk
Template list talk
Sources and links talk
Participants talk
Project milestones talk
Did You Know? archive talk

Contents

[edit] A standard for team squad representations

Even if a sort of "standardization" seems to be implemented, I have seen plenty of different representations of team rosters on football articles (look at AC Milan, S.S. Lazio and US Città di Palermo for a number of examples). I guess we all should definitely define a unique way to represent team squads, and implement it for all the football team articles. In my opinion, the current team squad representation style could be good, even if it contains information that I do not think to be particularly relevant, such as provenience (loan, from youth squad, etc...); by the way, I guess that sold players should not appear, in any case. Tell me your opinion about all this stuff. Ciao. --Angelo 20:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not a massive fan of bulleted squads, as the bullets add visual clutter. I would prefer to tabulate them, as there are multiple columns and they don't line up properly. This is a tabulated version

1 Wikipedian GK Tom Templateo
7 Wikipedian DF Tim Template
11 Wikipedian DF Tommy Templatius
12 Wikipedian MF Tom Template senior
13 Wikipedian ST Templaldo (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
99 Wikipedian MF Timmy Templaton

Everything lines up neatly. Of course, what would be good would be to use templates so that editors don't have to worry tables and all the wikicode. So we would have something like:

{{Football squad start}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tom Templateo]]|no=1|nat=Wikipedia|pos=GK}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tim Template]]|no=7|nat=Wikipedia|pos=DF}}
...
{{Football squad end}}

By using a template we can thus achieve a uniform style across pages. What do you think? Qwghlm 14:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it, but the problem is that with 30+ players in some teams, the list is too long and there is a lot of empty space to the right... Sometimes a table just looks better, take a look at Boca Juniors or Club Atlético River Plate. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, having two columns is easy, just split the list in half and wrap extra table tags around them:
{|
|
{{Football squad start}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tom Templateo]]|no=1|nat=Wikipedia|pos=GK}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tim Template]]|no=7|nat=Wikipedia|pos=DF}}
...
{{Football squad end}}
|-
|
{{Football squad start}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tommy Templatius]]|no=11|nat=Wikipedia|pos=DF}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tom Template senior]]|no=12|nat=Wikipedia|pos=MF}}
...
{{Football squad end}}
|}

sjorford #£@%&$?! 16:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

True, I just wanted to take the table creation out of it... :)
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Another easier way to avoid tables, as well as it is done on lots of Wiktionary entries:
{{Football squad start}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tom Templateo]]|no=1|nat=Wikipedia|pos=GK}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tim Template]]|no=7|nat=Wikipedia|pos=DF}}
...
{{Football squad mid}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tom Templateo II]]|no=12|nat=Wikipedia|pos=GK}}
{{Football squad player|name=[[Tim Template II]]|no=23|nat=Wikipedia|pos=DF}}
...
{{Football squad end}}

with the "mid" thing planned to automatically start a new column. What about this? (P.S. By the way, I am not just referring to implement a template thing, but also a different graphical way to let the players appear :-) --Angelo 20:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! --Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


What would this actually look like? Greg321 23:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I had planned with the Arsenal squad, using the template values from the top of this page:

1 Flag of Germany GK Jens Lehmann
3 Flag of England DF Ashley Cole
7 Flag of France MF Robert Pirès
8 Flag of Sweden MF Fredrik Ljungberg
9 Flag of Spain FW José Antonio Reyes
10 Flag of the Netherlands FW Dennis Bergkamp (vice-captain)
11 Flag of the Netherlands FW Robin van Persie
12 Flag of Cameroon DF Lauren
13 Flag of Belarus MF Alexander Hleb
14 Flag of France FW Thierry Henry (captain)
15 Flag of Spain MF Francesc Fabregas
16 Flag of France MF Mathieu Flamini
17 Flag of Cameroon DF Alexandre Song (on loan from Bastia)
18 Flag of France DF Pascal Cygan
19 Flag of Brazil MF Gilberto Silva
20 Flag of Switzerland DF Philippe Senderos
21 Flag of Estonia GK Mart Poom (on loan from Sunderland)
22 Flag of France DF Gaël Clichy

This is just for one column, I can't be bothered to do it for the other one just right now - just imagine more of the same on the right. Qwghlm 00:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It looks good; in my opinion, we could even think to finally create and adopt this new template system for both new and existing articles. --Angelo 10:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just gone on a wild rampage of both updating squad lists and reformatting them to the squad template (mostly among Bundesliga and Ligue 1 clubs. -- JoelCFC25 19:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd nationality, alphabet and loan issues

Ah, I forgot a little thing: we should also implement a "2nd nationality" option, as it is done on many Spanish football articles, like this; and we should also decide to include more information (like captain, on loan from, on loan to and more) or not (personally, I don't agree about that, those information seems to be unrelevant in my opinion). And, well, another thing: what to do for Russian teams, where team squads are represented in this way? --Angelo 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

What about just putting Sergei Ovchinnikov (Сергей Овчинников) for the russian names? I think putting loans, capatins etc. is a good thing and the way it is done above seems satisfactory. Perhaps second nationality people could just have two flags? Greg321 15:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Having said that the two flags do look a bit messy, any other ideas? Greg321 15:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
On loan information - definitely. Captain/vice-captain - I don't see why not. Dual nationality - two flags looks messy and often needless (especially if one flag is the EU flag). Since players can only play for one country, that flag should take precedence. As for Russian names, I think how the Lokomotiv Moscow page has it is fine - wikify the Romanised name, and have the un-wikified name in Cyrillic in brackets after it. Qwghlm 16:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I love it, but I would leave non-english spellings out... Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, Arabic.... nah, either we do it all or we just don't. As to the flags, I would leave the flag of the national team a player plays for, period. The "On loan To" doesn't make much sense, if the player is not on the squad, is not on the squad... maybe in a separate section.
Just my 2 cents.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I would include players who are out on loan. Many loans are only for a month or two months. I would only consider excluding a loaned out player if he was out on loan for the full season or if his club do not give him a squad number. By a seperate section, do you mean this way? Oldelpaso 10:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I mean all of that you have wrote. What I told is just to exclude loaned out players from the current team squad; of course these information could be included in an appropriate section. --Angelo 12:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Is this, Crystal_Palace_F.C.#Squad_list, how it should look? Greg321 09:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It should look as divided on two columns; and it should use just templates, not tables. --Angelo 14:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


What with players, who can play two positions? Eg. midfielder and forward? kalaha 11:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's adopt the new template? + 2nd nationality issue

Okay, people, it seems that we all agree about the standard discussed above, so I guess we could finally adopt it. May I make the new template, or do you have any other issue to discuss for? --Angelo 00:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted you to notice that a player who never played for a national team could still have 2 nationalities.. What should we do for this (I think of Oleg Iachtchouk for example, even if it seems in this case the nationality should be Ukrainian, shouldn't it?).

By the way, I wondered how I could be part of this wikiproject? Do I just need to add myself in the list? Thanx, Julien Tuerlinckx 14:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just add yourself to the list on the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Football page. Oldelpaso 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
My idea is to indicate just the country for which a footballer plays; e.g. Iachtchouk plays for Ukraine, even if he is also Belgian. Another prominent case is Mauro German Camoranesi, who is Argentinian-born, but plays for Italy national football team, so he should be represented as Italian. --Angelo 21:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah but the point is that Iachtchouk has never played with Ukraine so it should not be as simple, though in the case of Iachtchouk, he was born Ukrainian and took the Belgian nationality after a long stay in the country, but he nevertheless was Ukrainian for a longer time. But what would happen with a player born with 2 nationalities, and who, of course, has never played with any national team? I concur it may concern a small number of players, but it is just in case. Julien Tuerlinckx 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I would just choose the native citizenship of the player (e.g. Ukraine, in the case of Iachtchouk). Then, should he receive a call from another national team (e.g. Belgium), we are in time to update the related information... --Angelo 22:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


About the two nationalities, I am also in favour of keeping only one flag, but I still can't imagine what will happen with a player born with 2 nationalities: which one will we keep if the player has never played with any national team? For instance, we have a player in K.S.V. Roeselare who was born Neo Zealander? by his mother and Belgian by his father (and this player has never played for any nateam, remember): what will be his nationality? See also previous section, Julien Tuerlinckx 15:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Did you mean Bouckenooghe? He already played for New Zealand: [1]. --Angelo 15:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Oh, sorry. I admit I did not even checked my claim and I should have. But I could have asked the same question about Musaba Selemani: following my source, he is from Rwanda and burundi (but it does not say he was born with both nationality, but let us suppose he was) and some internet sources say he is Togolese or sometime Congolese and Rwandese. Sorry to bore you, Julien Tuerlinckx 16:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some problems of new templates

First of all I want to say I greatly appreciate all the work that was done to create some unified pattern of squad list. But I want to highlight some of the problems that are with it yet:

  1. It has too long template names - not too useful :(
  2. It lacks some fields for information - such as second nationality (which can be important when counting EU and non-EU players, for example)
  3. It makes people to add information like captain, on loan to the Name field; that would be quite odd to users
  4. It doesn't allow to include quite useful info - date of arriving to team, and club from which player had arrived

--Monkbel 13:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. On (1), it could be solved, it is just a technical issue: I could even use {{fs_start}}, {{fs_player}} and {{fs_end}}, if you guess they fit better;
  2. On (2), there has been a longdiscussion about this issue, and it seemed to be useless to hold information about second nationalities (and I still guess it is just unnecessary);
  3. On (3), ya, you're right, I'll solve it ASAP;
  4. On (4), this kind of information has never been proposed, and it is frequently hard to retrieve, especially for smaller teams (and, IMHO, unnecessary too).

I hope to have been exhaustive enough... :-) --Angelo 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extra info (like captain or loan) issue

I don't understand - what's the problem with adding extra info to the name section? I think it's best to keep it as it is and allow some flexibility of use. Also, I don't think it's a wise idea to add too much information - date of arrival and previous team are not as relevant as the information already included. Qwghlm 14:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added a "other" tag that could be setted to "captain" or "vice-captain", instead of adding this information to the "name"; for "onloan" information, I am experiencing some relevant troubles for implementing this functionality. But I guess a solution must exist. By the way, I guess these information should be implemented in external tags. --Angelo 14:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that is the "other" value will have to be specified as blank when there is nothing to add (i.e. name=Player Name | other=|}}), which will be for the majority of players. If a user forgets to specify it as blank, {{{other}}} will appear when the template is produced, which will look ugly. How about we just let the minority of players who need extra information have it specified in the name variable, as I have implemented it? It allows flexibility for all the different uses (captaincy, on loan from, on loan to, not arriving till the transfer window is open) and means you don't have to do a lot of extra work. Qwghlm 15:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely no. Look at the US Palermo article for a proof. --Angelo 15:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've seen what you've done now and understand. That's quite nice, if a lot of extra work. Can you update the documentation for the template so we know what values other can take? Qwghlm 15:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. --Angelo 15:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure whether we really need two flags; but I'm quite positive about usefulness of having info about player's arriving into the club. It is info that could be acquired quite easily for most players; and it is also provided in some articles - and I'm quite sure we shouldn't delete it. Thanks for solving 3rd point.

Also, I guess {{fs-start}} and so on (may be just redirects?) would be more useful to people.

So I see now one points left and few new:

  1. Addition (and returning to the articles like A.C. Milan) of information about arriving to the team.
  2. Design. Current now looks not too convenient for the readers, I think.
  3. Link to the national team of the player. I think it would be great if the flag of the country was a link to the player's national team.

--Monkbel 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the info 'previous club' is really relevant here. A single click on the player provides more info on him and if he's got the player infobox, you directly see what was (all) his previous clubs. Julien Tuerlinckx 10:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Most players (really, most) don't have their articles yet. But user has his right to know at a glance when this player has joined the team. --Monkbel 10:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Julien that previous club is not relevant. It will overcrowd the template, while that information is available in much more detail on the player's bio page. It is meant to be a quick set of links to players' names, not a comprehensive table of everything about them (what else shall we have - height? date of birth? appearances & goals?). Monkbel, you are going to have to back up your assertions with some decent arguments, not just say things arbitarily. Why does the user "have a right" to the extra information? In what way is the design "not too convenient" for them?
As for the national flag thing, (a) I don't think it's possible, and (b) it would imply the player is an international, when that is not always the case. Qwghlm 10:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, the extra information that Monkbel insists on including isn't actually included in most football squad articles on WP, so we would have to find that information out first, for every single club, before adding them in as parameters to the template. For those clubs that do currently have this information, I resolve not to use the new template on them until the dispute is resolved. Qwghlm 11:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1. Ok, since I see that no unanimous decision could be reached at a glance here, I propose a vote. Alternative: creating second template for the player, which includes information about player's arrival; and we'll be able to show information where it is available.
2. Ok, I see we shouldn't link to the national team since player may not be an international; But we need some possibility to write, show or link to the name of the country (other than looking on flag's filename), since some flags are not so well-known to most readers.
3. Design... I can't say it is very unconvenient; but it seems there is a way to make it better... but right now I can't say how exactly to do it, so I withdraw this question for a while. --Monkbel 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too few positions issue

  1. And I have just found out - we have too little position options! only DF, MF, FW; but a lot of players have more specific info - like DM, CM, RW, LW, LB and so on. I'm also positive we can't throw this info away. --Monkbel 10:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget GK too :). I think it good as it is now. Indeed, for some players it is already unclear whether he is a midfielder or a defender for example. Thus by splitting those categories, we expose ourselves to the (mainly graphical) problem of multiple positions. The multiple positions of a player should be listed in the player infobox (in the player article) and not in the team article I think. Julien 11:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
But there are players which always play in the same position, and it should be noted for them, I think; like Kaká is AM, and Roy Keane is DM - and we shouldn't make them both just midfielders. Of course, I don't insist to put this specific info for all players; MF, DF is enough for most of them. --Monkbel 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Creating several sub-categories for positions could become confusing for many readers. I doubt the average Wikipedia user is familiar with terminology of the style of Championship Manager ;-) Oldelpaso 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue with adding more positions is? The people who are interested in this type of information are the people who would understand the terminology. Why would they not be able to figure out DLRC when we are expecting them to figure out DF now? John the mackem 00:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to have multiple positions linking to the general position articles? For instance, LW/RW/AM/DM would all link back to 'Midfielder'. These abbreviations would be explained in the relevant articles, for those or are unfamiliar with their meanings. And it could be limited to a maximum of two positions - one player having CB/RB isn't going to over-comlicate things. If a player can play anywhere in defence, or is pretty much unknown, simply leave it as DF. CharlieT 15:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I won't support at all to have more positions than the most generic four ones. Firstly, because I think we should make things simple, and it would be very hard, for example, to represent a player who plays in several positions: an attacking midfielder who is able to play also as left/right winger would make the players' list look in a messy way (and it is also hard to be fitted in this template, by the way). Secondly, despite what John said on his previous comment, I guess that these articles should be easily understood also by who has no kind of familiarity with football positions. I love Football Manager, but it's not the case to let the squads look like on the game. --Angelo 02:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Angelo. And if someone wants to know more about a player, just klick the link. This goes for other info as well, like birth date, date the player joined the club, and so on. The squad list is not there to give you all info there is, it just provides the most basic info, and suggests interrested readers to read more at the players' articles. -- Elisson • Talk 15:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
But most players (especially in lower leagues) don't have pages, and it would be cumbersome & unneccessary to create stubs for every single one just to include their position. When looking at my team's squad I know the players' positions, but not those of other teams, and I think it'd be helpful to have simple but useful information like which wing they play on etc. CharlieT 15:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
If the player isn't worthy of having his own page, then maybe it isn't a big deal not having his exact position (you still know if he's a keeper, defender, midfielder or forward). And a related question, do you believe it is more important to include a "non notable" player's exact position than his age, place of birth, or which other clubs he has played for? -- Elisson • Talk 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What should a put on a player who can play everywhere on the field? I have that problem on Freddy dos Santos on Vålerenga since he plays all positions... Arnemann 17:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The most common position he plays on. Or, if the official site lists positions for its players, the one stated there (although I see that VIF's official states he can play everywhere). -- Elisson • Talk 18:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young players issue

In general, I think the squad template is quite good right know: not too much info so it is easy to fullfill, and enough info to have a quick overview of the squad. I just thought of another thing to improve but I'm not sure it will be that good: we could find a way to "emphasize" young players (under 21?) so we could quickly see if the team is a "young" one or not. Or we could add the average age of the players. What do you think? Julien Tuerlinckx 11:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any necessity in adding average age to the templates. Anyone can just add this info to the article, without templates. --Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we can just change the background colour for the young players? A light yellow would be nice. Julien Tuerlinckx 11:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Support. --Monkbel 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not very keen, myself. Not just because I don't like the colour but because it presents certain difficulties. For starters, define "young". Under 21? Under 18? What if a player is "young" but plays in the first team rather than the youth team (e.g. Rooney, Fabregas)? Plus it would need continual updating every time a player passes the relevant birthday. Qwghlm 11:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
At a first glance, a "young" would be a player under 21. If the "young" player plays in the youth team, he won't generally even be mentionned in the article. Actually I was only speaking about first team players. We are still left with the problem of updating. We could act like cowards and just take advantage of the following sentence who is (or should be) included at the beginning of each "current squad" section: As of Brumaire 33, 2689:. But I agree it is maybe not the best solution... Wait and see, Julien Tuerlinckx 12:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem with my solution up here is that, for consistency, it would be better to have all teams updated "at the same time" (virtually) so that the coloured thing will keep having sense. For instance, if we highlight the under 21 players of the MUFC squad as of November 2, 2005 and those of Arsenal as of, say, August 21, 2005, the comparison between the numbers of supposed "youth" players will be quite truncated... Julien Tuerlinckx 12:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I quote Qwghlm. And, by the way, I don't even think it could be a good idea. Sincerely, I don't see the need of that; when a player plays in the first team, he just plays there, regardless of his age. --Angelo 12:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The point here is that it could be interesting to have at a first glance an idea of the number of under21 players in a team. So you can for example see if a team is likely to give a chance to young players. Furthermore, in the Jupiler League, each match must begin with 2 under21 players. Maybe it is the case in other leagues too? But this argument is quite weak as it is comparable to the one of the supporters of a 2nd nationality flag. It is just a suggestion, but I feel like there are more important issues to discuss first, for example the so-called Template:Football player infobox :). Julien Tuerlinckx 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect template

Following some requests on this discussion, I have realized a number of redirect templates with a shorter name. Actually they are {{Fs start}}, {{Fs player}}, {{Fs mid}} and {{Fs end}}. I have tried them and they seem to work properly. Ciao. --Angelo 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Full nationalities name

I suggest using only full nationalities (like England) name in nat parameter (as opposed to 3-letter acronyms like ENG), since it is much more informative and intuitional. I'm going to fix this issue in a few articles. --Monkbel 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Sometimes it is easier to write the only abbreviation instead of the full nationality (e.g. CIV instead of Cote d'Ivoire, SCG instead of "Serbia and Montenegro" and so on). Anyway, this decision should be left to be taken by the one who writes a team squad. And, in both case, the article looks the same. --Angelo 22:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
First of all, of course, the article looks the same. This is just a case of article being convenient for editors. May be sometimes it is easier to write CIV instead of Cote d'Ivoire, but what if you read CIV? For me it means nothing - but Cote d'Ivoire is quite informative. And what if someone needs to add player or fix one in the squad? We can assume usual newbie editor is not aware about {{flagicon}} being able to show flags by both full name and abbreviation; so if he sees abbreviations in the article, he will be forced to search abbreviation for the nationalities of newly added players, and this is not so easy... could you provide abbreviations for Costa-Rica, Brunei, Ghana, etc., at a glance? However, when you already have the squad with acronyms instead of full names (e.g. you retrieved it from uefa.com), it's not so hard to get all the full names instead of acronyms. --Monkbel 06:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The list of acronyms for each country in the world is available, and even linked by the template guide itself. It is actually the list of IOC country codes, an authoritative source I guess. Secondly, there are so many squads, by the way, which uses these codes instead of full nationalities; a decision like this one will make a big, bad, impact on these articles. Anyway, I guess that the decision should be left to the editor. --Angelo 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Football squad player/other/}} and its subtemplates

I'm going to nominate this template and its subtemplates for speedy deletion, as they are not used any more. If any of the participants is admin, I think he can just delete them right now even without the nomination. --Monkbel 10:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] To what extent?

Hi, to what extent should we write articles about football clubs (and others)? I mean, what should be an objective? criterion to delete an existant football club article. For example, in Belgium, I will create all the team articles for teams that once played in the 1st division or recently (10 years?) in 2nd division. Another example is that some Swedish 3rd division player articles have been deleted.

So I think we should find a relevant question who could replace the following one: Do we have to create this club article? (Such a question could be "Has it ever played in the 1st or 2nd division of a national championship?"). What do you think? Julien Tuerlinckx 13:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

For larger countries (England, Germany, Italy, Spain, ...), I believe that teams down to 4th-8th level is perfectly okay, for smaller ones, (Belgium, Sweden, Poland, Greece, ...), I'd say 2nd-5th level is okay. This also depends on the number of teams in each level. England for example has single-group levels (1-1-1-1-1-2-...) down to the 5th, while Germany has only two single levels (1-1-2-9-...). The more single-group levels, the more levels should be included. Players from for example the Swedish 3rd level is way overkill. 1st and 2nd level players is fine for those "smaller" countries, IMHO. -- Elisson • Talk 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What would happen if a team was relegated below the division we had demed it acceptable to have player profiles for? Would we then have to delete the players articles? Why not simply say, any team which has played at a "reasonable" level should have an article, which should include player profiles. I realise "reasonable" not conclusive but i don't believe we need to be, why not simply let this be decided for each team. In my personal opinion it would be any leagues which are made up of a maximum of two halves nationaly. I suggest that in some contries this may not be "reasonable" and so this and other decisions of this type don't need to be decided for the general case. Greg321 15:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure no articles about players should be deleted, if these players were notable enough at some point of their career. --Monkbel 11:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my humble opinion

I think that this template is ugly compared with similar templates (like NBA teams' rosters). It is a simple list of players with no appeal and poor visibility. does anyone agree with me? any ideas to improve it? I think a restyle is required... (necronudist)

The NBA rosters do look good. Greg321 23:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the NBA rosters do look good, but just for their needing. I guess that football squad look so very good for football articles (remember, NBA is not soccer, that could even have more than 30 players for team and lots of different positions, depending on the players' characteristics. So, let's enjoy our one, and forget about NBA: it's not our sport at all, folks!. Thanks and ciao. --Angelo 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying to copy the NBA-style, it is too excessive, I'm just suggesting a little graphical improvement, let it more engaging... more charming! By now it is a template-ized simple list... If for all of you it is good like it is, okay. [I think if someone has suggestions deserve to be listen seriously] Ciao Angelo.romano --necronudist 11:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you should try and make these templates better, and then show us your efforts. If it will be better than now - why not? Be bold! --Monkbel 13:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I've already tried to make some templates, having a look at existing templates to understand how to make one, unfortunately it's too complex for me. If someone is unsatisfied by this template like me, can show its try. --necronudist 14:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
How about a header line, something like this? The background colour of the header line would be set to match the team colour. I've yet to work out getting the spacing right. Oldelpaso 15:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think your variant is better than one we have already; be bold to incorporate your changes in {{football squad start}} (while they don't break any of existing articles)! You can always drop them if there is any active opposition. --Monkbel 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It could look bad for some articles, because of the spaces. It should be implement only when it will not have any bad impact on all the existing articles. I am worried about, especially after to have experienced the "width=100%" impact on some articles (the matter is discussed here). And, by the way, I don't even agree about the proposal of matching the header colour with the team one, better to choose properly one for every squad. About the header itself, well, I would look it favourably just on the conditions explained above. --Angelo 16:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Great! It looks fresh, professional and very visible...! For the header colour, I agree with Angelo, the personalized-colours are good for NBA, MLB, MLS, etc where you have n numbers of squad and no more. Here, we want to create a standard for the billions of football-teams allover the world, so it's better a sole solution, I think. --necronudist 17:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If the "width=%" method causes problems, does anybody know of an alternative method? Oldelpaso 14:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice. I quite like the addition of colour. But I'm not so keen on the white spaces between elements in the header row - is it possible to set cellspacing=0 (this may require a little extra cellpadding to compensate)? As for custom header colours - I'm pretty neutral on that issue, but one note you need to make is that you would also need to set a foreground colour, for teams that play in navy blue or a dark colour could not use black text in the header. Also, please do not be bold when playing with templates! I really think that example code and considerate discussion before bold changes, like you have done, is a better way of doing things, given the number of pages that can be affected by such a change. Qwghlm 18:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't work out how to get rid of the white space, but then I know very little about tables and markup. Maybe someone more proficient can give it a go. Oldelpaso 21:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I've done the necessary edits in User:Oldelpaso/Sandbox. Basically all it involves is adding border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" after the short {| in the {{football squad start}} and {{football squad mid}} templates. Comments on the change welcome... Qwghlm 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd view either as acceptable. Oldelpaso 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I have done some corrections to the proposed template, in order to fix a possible width issue. You may find it on my sandbox. Tell me your opinion about. --Angelo 21:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


I think you should add the captain and loan info so that we can compare the templates. Actually I think I missed something in the discussion above. What are the differences between the one of Angelo and the one of of Oldelpaso? Julien Tuerlinckx 13:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Julien - Angelo removed width variables which can cause problems with some articles (see Angelo's second comment on this subsection).
Angelo - Your version has the second column narrower than the first column on my display. Oldelpaso 19:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Shall we change this page (i.e. the project page) so that the new template is include, so that when someone new comes they know what to use. The templates weve got look fine to me, i've used Oldelpaso's for no particular reason. Lets make it official. Greg321 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is how the new style looks for an article previously affected by the width issue (K.S.V. Roeselare). That "captain" info looks particularly bad, by the way: I'll look for a solution on this. Tell me your opinion, WikiFolks! --Angelo 23:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't like the changes -
  1. The colors hardly fit into any article
  2. The position-column is way too wide
  3. The "player"-header being centered doesn't look very good
  4. The absence of a header at the country-flags
Well, as you can see, I'm in big favor of the old style - I thought that was less... say... missimashy. In this case, I think that less is more. It's a friggin squad list... The informations are as self-explanatory as can be! And if you don't understand any of the "FW", etc., a simple click will tell you what it is. I apologize if this sounds a bit harsh, but this is just my honest opinion /AB-me (chit-chat) 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I realized that the colors should be matched to every team individually (which I still think can be painfully ugly, especially with certain teams with purple or magenta jerseys/logos).
However, one thing that I would like, and that would not interfere with the current template-style was that the "last update"-date was incorporated into the {{fs start}}-template - this would also standardize it. /AB-me (chit-chat) 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes...good idea. --necronudist 23:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear AB-me, I don't agree about your date-related update for {{Fs start}}. It's kinda thing so definitely small that I think it should better be left outside it. And, by the way, remember that, as of today, the heavy majority of football team articles use the current system, with the update date outside of the template schema. About the colour issue, as I always said, I guess the whole schema should look uniformly in all articles. But they're just opinions of mine. --Angelo 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. But is the {{fs start}} still work in progress, then? Secondly, I don't think implementing the last update-date into the start-template is any harder than implementing these football squad-templates into the articles. I see your point - but I don't think deleting a line of text and then adding |date=January 25, 2005 into a template is that much work. Obviously it would be implemented with {{qif}}, so that articles like you mention wouldn't be harmed. Hope this makes sense. /AB-me (chit-chat) 13:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reorganizing talk page

I propose reorganizing talk page, since now it is too difficult to read the discussions. I think it would be better to put all the questions about new templates under one headline, and to put the separate section for every question: age, arrival, design, template names and so on. --Monkbel 12:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Julien Tuerlinckx 12:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I started a bit of reorganization. Basically, I just added some headers except for the 2nd nationality issue for which I moved the content of a discussion to the section Let's adopt the new template which already contained a previous bit of discussion. Feel free to change it again as it is still messy. Julien Tuerlinckx 15:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Honours section

I think the honours section should be like the 1 on the Bayern Munich page. Kingjeff 02:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard?

According to the manual of style we're supposed to use the term "Achievements", and a fixed setup, for whatever trophies each club may have won. Is this still only a proposal, or is it now the way of doing it? At the moment there are a whole bunch of standards out there (inconsistency galore!) and even our two featured articles haven't been built up in the same way. In my opinion the setup used in the manual works perfectly well (although I do prefer the term "Honours"), and I would start implementing it all over, but is this the accepted norm yet? --Léman 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "Honours" is better than "Achievements" but I suspect opinion would split on that one. The proposed format is what I've been implementing on a few French clubs, although there are some minor differences so I should go back and clean them up. The table as used on the Bayern Munich page is not very nice to look at, lots of wasted space, etc. My take is that the indented bulleted lists look much nicer. -- JoelCFC25 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I see it as highly dependent on the club and its history - clubs like Arsenal F.C. might have an "Honours" section for their many trophies, while lesser clubs like Brøndby IF might be better served by "Achievements", in order to fit in merriting "also-rans" achievements (i.e. the Brøndby's UEFA Cup semi final). So for me it's individual whether to adopt either Honours or Achievements, as long as the section header describes the section contents. I agree with JoelCFC25 on the bulleted lists, though. Poulsen 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point, "Achievements" would be more befitting of a smaller club that might be rightly proud of making a good cup run, finishing near the top of the table against the odds, that sort of thing. It would be noteworthy but not something you could call an "Honour" like actually winning a league or cup. JoelCFC25 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not Honors and achievements? --Elliskev 14:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd nationality proposal

My view on the 2nd nationality is it would be better to write a short text just below the "Current roster" heading, as just depicting two flags does nothing but confuse the uninitiated. Something like:

Under the rules of the Royal Spanish Football Federation or RFEF or La Liga, each team is allowed the maximum quota of three non-European citizens. Currently Real Madrid have only two non-EU players in Júlio Baptista and Robinho or Currently FC Barcelona have filled their quota of non-EU players with Samuel Eto'o, Rafael Marquez, and Ronaldinho.

I can't remember if it's three or four players, but just for the sake of an example. Still, it won't make clear why the other Brazilians in the squads aren't treated as Non-EU players, but could the idea of a small text be built upon? Poulsen 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If it could be a short sentence, I think it would be a good idea but as my English is not that good, I'll let other people find a text. Otherwise, maybe we could create an article about this regulation in the different countries where it applies and make a link to it in the short sentence below the current roster section of each team concerned. Julien Tuerlinckx 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

well...maybe a linked sentence could be the way :) --necronudist 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No nationality proposal

This template has been added to Australia national soccer team; I don't suppose there's any chance of someone whipping up a version without the flags, which are decidedly redundant in this context? ～J.K. 12:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out {{nat fs start}}, {{nat fs player}} and {{nat fs end}} - or alternately {{nat fs g start}} and {{nat fs g player}}. Poulsen 19:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Not sure we should have a Trivia section here. Normally when an article on FAC has one, they suggest moving the info from the Trivia section into other parts of the article and deleting the Trivia section. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours and Badge

Is this neccesary, considering they are already on the infobox? any other info on them (e.g. how they were chosen) can go in history cant it? Philc 0780 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, better to have it in separate sections. See for example how Arsenal F.C. and IFK Göteborg (both featured articles) uses the sections. Mixing it with the history section just makes it harder to find. – Elisson • Talk 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Plus not all visitors are fully-sighted. Visual content should add to the text, not replace it. Oldelpaso 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardized club names

I am new here and I searched the discussion of all the templates to see if this has been addressed, so if this is the wrong place I apologize. Has there been a determination to uniformly refer to clubs using their local language (or not)? For example, in a page that lists numerous clubs would you use FC Bayern Munich or FC Bayern München? FK Red Star Belgrade or FK Crvena Zvezda? The list of European Cup winners I just linked uses a mish-mash of both and before I or anyone else tries to clean it up I would like to know what the rule is (perhaps there is just a general Wikipedia guideline I need to go read). -- JoelCFC25 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of the existence of a naming convention policy for football clubs, so I suppose Wikipedia:Naming conventions and in particular Wikipedia:Proper names should apply here. Would you please take a look there and see the policies there are consistent with how the football clubs are described in practice? --Pkchan 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLS soccer club articles vs. European soccer club articles

Aparently there is some standard for MLS club articles that is different from the standard European club article. Does anyone think that there should be only 1 standard for all soccer club articles?Kingjeff 16:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All MLS club articles adhere to a standard, which is not necessarily equal to the standard for other club articles. I have worked very hard for the past 2 years in keeping and maintining that standard. For example, they have a detailed info box, which other clubs do not have. They also have a specific order of sections. I think it's stupid to have sections with one sentence in them, which is what you tried to do. In fact, when WikiProject Football started, Elisson and I talked about keeping different formats for different countries. Please try to respect others' work. DR31 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what I tried to do and you know it. I think MLS club article standards are inferior to the European club article standards. Kingjeff 18:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And I think they're better; the only thing missing is history subsections for a few of the teams; the rest is incredibly consistent. I worked for 2 years to keep them up, you just showed up. Your point is? DR31 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

STOP REVERTING THE PAGES UNTIL CONSENSUS IS REACHED DR31 (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this consensus being reached anywhere in particular or is it spread across several talk pages? Just remember that the manual of style "is a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football club" not set guide lines, best attested in the featured club article Arsenal F.C., which doesn't "live up" to the manual of style 100%. Poulsen 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
An interresting discussion. There are a few things that I would like to point out before I participate any more in it:
  1. Kingjeff, please calm down. Do not revert pages, or make large changes to the layout, unless you have a really, really, good reason. Extensive discussion is often necessary, and the way you have behaved before makes it even more necessary in some cases.
  2. I do want a standard for all football (soccer) clubs, including MLS ones. That's one of the reasons why I started the WikiProject.
  3. I don't want to ruin other people's hard work. That's why I am not very willing to just "overwrite" all of Dr31's work on the MLS club articles.
That's all I have to say at the moment. And my condolences to Dr31 regarding the Red Bull takeover. :( – Elisson • Talk 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I am more than willing to work on a compromise which would help enhance the MLS pages in the long run. Btw, the Red Bull New York article which Kingjeff keeps reverting was a featured article in its MetroStars existance very recently. DR31 (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one calm here. Dr31 is the one freaking out over this. The really really good reason is that I'm standardizing the article to proper standards. All the information on the articles is exactly the same except the headers.Kingjeff 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are pathetic. You told me that this should be discussed here. You disregard this discussion and go ahead and revert the pages. You are a sad man, Kingjeff. Adding section headings to 1-sentence paragraphs does not add anything to the article; it makes it ugly and hard to read. If you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, you will see it clearly spelled out: Avoid overuse of subheadings. Please stop. DR31 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking for somekind of war. If so don't write anything to me unless you're going to be civil to me. Kingjeff 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr31, the length of time you spent working on these articles is irrelavent to their standard. Also the infoboxes in the European articles have more relevant information in them while the MSL ones seem to be cluttered with what is no more that random facts. I also think it is better to have a standard, even if the paragraphs are short, it is easier to locate information that you are looking for, and easier for other users to see where to place any information. Especially if all the articles are standardized. Now i dont mean to cause any disrespect, but you seem to be regarding the MSL articles as your 'pet' project, and unwilling to accept any change. Even if Kingjeff approched the issue a bit harshly, you responded in an equal fashion. Also you seem to be reverting for consistency with MLS articles, and Kingjeff for consistency with the Football (soccer) articles standard, so couldnt this be solved by changing all of the MLS articles to meet the standard? Philc 0780 23:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the harshness. I just find it pathetic when someone promises to talk it out and then goes ahead and makes the changes anyway. First of all, I don't think the amount of time of the work put in is irrelevant. We should respect other editors for their amount of effort and expect the same in return. Now, the question about MLS standard vs other teams. Yes, it's different. The MLS box, which I worked hard on finding the right data on, was based on Template:National football team, and does not contain random facts, but rather summarizes important club information. And no, we can't use the standard club template. For example, MLS teams don't have "chairmen". They have "general managers". And there are other subtle differences throughout.
Am I unwilling to accept any change? Don't be ridiculous. Look above where it says I'm willing to compromise. I've worked on many other editors on these articles over the past two years. These editors come and go, but somehow I remain. Now, what I think Kingjeff is doing is making the articles look horrible. You think short paragraphs are good; I think they look like crap. Does my opinion matter more than yours, because I worked on these pages for so long? Who knows. But if you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, you will see it clearly spelled out: Avoid overuse of subheadings. And no well-written article on Wikipedia has subheadings for 1-sentence paragraphs. It's just NOT done.
If we want to go ahead and standardize MLS articles on par with the rest of the soccer world, fine. When one does so, he should pay close attention to American soccer vs European football lingo such as the "chairman" tidbit explained above. And if one does so, he should start out by expanding the content of these articles, so that there's enough to be put under each subheading. As it was said above, it's a prosposal, not a set guide line. DR31 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Even if probably Kingjeff did wrong to unilaterally change the articles without having a clear consesus on these pages, Dr31's work on US soccer articles is, in my opinion, of (much) lower quality than the European ones. I think Dr31 should turn these articles according to the standardization suggestions of WikiProject Football; I don't mean to make any drastic revert, just some adaptation work. I could make the job, if you all agree. --Angelo 00:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim that the articles are great, in fact, I've stayed away from writing text in them, since I'm incredibly biased towards one team and do not want my opinion getting in there. One must also remember that our league has been around for only 10 years and our teams do not have as much support as many European teams with great Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, I believe that the MLS info boxes are better than anything you see on European pages. And I've gone to great lengths of keeping the information current. Now, if you want to create some kind of compromised layout -- without killing the MLS info box please, and without reserving to minimalist paragraphs with headings -- be my guest, but it would be great if you did that on a temp page somewhere, discuss those changes with myself and others, and only then, when a consensus is reached, apply them to the pages. DR31 (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't really see any major differences between MLS pages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs, except for the Colours and badge, Stadium, and Supporters sections, which as I said above don't think warrant their own section with that little content there for now. The only other differences are in section headers, where I used terms more often used in the US. I will start converting the squads using the preferred templates myself. DR31 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see... Going more in detail:
  • About the infobox issue, it was already discussed to make changes on it some time ago, and the proposal was turned down. The standard for football (soccer) clubs provides a "Records" section where to put the additional info you included in your infobox. I think you should use the suggested approach with the regular infobox.
As I explained, the regular infobox does not suit well because of difference of terminology (lack of "chairman", "ground" vs "stadium", "manager" vs "coach", "colours" vs "colors" (yes, that's American English vs British English, but these are AMERICAN teams), with MLS teams, nicknames are imbedded in the name (except in a couple of cases), so repeating them is pointless. When I saw that the regular infobox will not do for MLS teams, I went ahead and made that one. I was BOLD. I just don't see the big problem. If you really think it's important, I can go and make an infobox exactly like the current European one, but use American terminology. But what's the point, if that's not gonna conform either? Might as well leave the one there now. DR31 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
1) The "chairman" and "nickname" fields might easily be turned as conditional, just properly modifying the template code in order to let them hide when unspecified;
Yes, but then we have an empty infobox. DR31 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the infobox already allow specifying mgrtitle so you could have either Coach, Manager, Head Coach or something else? Couldn't the infobox be tweaked to also allow the substitution of General Manager for Chairman, or Stadium for Ground? -- JoelCFC25 15:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
2) The other stuff you talk about concerns only some linguistical issues; sincerely I wouldn't support you in it, as I wouldn't like to authorize a different infobox for each variant of English: isn't just USA and England, you know?!? What about Canada, Scotland, Ireland, and so on...
We're not dealing with Canada, Scotland, and Ireland. These are articles about AMERICAN teams. And since the whole "soccer vs football" debate has been going on for years, the resolution has always been to use American terms when dealing with the game in America. It's that simple. DR31 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
3) What about the "records" section on your infobox? I think that's acutally the real issue.
Is it really an issue? How is it different from "most caps" and "most goals" for national teams? If you really think it's a big deal, I'll alter it. Fine. DR31 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

--Angelo 03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • About the paragraphs, for sure you don't have to add empty or quasi-empty paragraphs only because they're listed among the suggested ones. Actually, you may be bold on this issue, but following what our WikiProject suggests. --Angelo 01:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be bold in leaving them out unless there's enough information for each section. DR31 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingjeff, please stop

Kingjeff, I ask you again. Please do not add stadium and suporters subsections to the Red Bull New York article. If you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, you will see it clearly spelled out: Avoid overuse of subheadings. It makes the article look horrible. Please stop. I really don't understand your actions. First you tell me to discuss it here until a consensus is reached. While a discussion is going on, you continue to alter the article in your way, disregarding what myself and others are posting here. Meanwhile, I have altered all the articles to adhere more to the standard, without victimizing their look. It seems to be that the consensus, and following the Manual of Style, is to not have subheadings for 1-sentence paragraphs. Yet you continue to insert them. Please respect others' work. And you wonder why so many editors are having problems with you. DR31 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't insert any one sentence. I inserted standard headings for soccer clubs and you reverted more then my edit. If you have problesm with small headers, then add to it instead of insulting me. Kingjeff 04:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Who insulted you now? Adhere to the consensus please like you promised. Which part of the above don't you understand?

  1. Do not revert pages, or make large changes to the layout, unless you have a really, really, good reason.
  2. the manual of style "is a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football club" not set guide lines
  3. you don't have to add empty or quasi-empty paragraphs only because they're listed among the suggested ones
  4. Avoid overuse of subheadings DR31 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

and what was the consensus? It seems as if you have an answer to everything. Kingjeff 04:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See the summarized points made just above your most recent post. DR31 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defunct football club infobox

I have created a variation of the football club infobox suitable for use in articles about defunct football clubs. Suggestions for changes and improvements welcome. Oldelpaso 13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manager histories

I've been looking at the Manager History sections in the 44 Premiership and Championship club pages (no disrespect to any lower division teams intended), and have noticed that these sections have widely differing names between the different club pages. The breakdown is as follows:

  • Managers - 18
  • (no section) - 12
  • Managerial history - 5
  • Manager History - 2
  • List of managers - 2
  • Club managers - 1
  • Famous Managers - 1
  • Team Managers - 1
  • Notable former managers - 1
  • Managers since 1946 - 1

Interestingly, not one uses the Templated suggestion 'Noted managers'. I'd like to propose a standard name be used (for example #Managers, as it is seemingly the most commonly used). I think this would make the manager succession boxes a lot easier to create, as the link in the centre box would always be of the form Club Name F.C.#Managers. The drawback would be that many such existing links to the manager histories would need to be corrected. I'd be interested to hear what people think... Jameboy 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, the best way to link from the succession boxes is Club Name F.C. manager. I still think the section names could benefit from uniformity though. Jameboy 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For a full list of managers, Managerial history makes sense, for a partial list I'd probably plump for consistency with the Noted players section. For lengthier club articles I advocate giving a full list of managers its own article, not that I'm biased or anything. Oldelpaso 19:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, does every club name include "Football Club" abbreviated "F.C."? Or do 'pedians, historians, database builders use "F.C." sometimes as a marker to show that this is a football club? Do some clubs in non-English-speaking countries use "FC" in the club name in recognition of England's historical role?
The section name should be "Managers", not "Famous managers" or "List of managers", etc. (1) Use English prose, probably above the list, to explain the scope of the particular list: "Nineteen men and one woman have led the storied squad but only six worked at least two full seasons. [list includes only six]". (2) Use English prose, probably below the list, to explain variable historical terminology: the manager was titled "Coach" until a wealthy Australian purchased the club and he is still called "Coach" in the local newspapers, or whatever. --P64 03:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FCHD template

I've created a new template, Template:Fchd, to standardise external links to the Football Club History Database. It doesn't do a lot of formatting, but it will make it easier to change all the links when the whole site moves at the end of June. I'll start updating existing links shortly. — sjorford++ 12:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coach nationalities

Recently there has been some discussion on the MLS Kansas City Wizards page about how to denote the nationality of a coach. Specifically the current head coach is marked with the Hungarian flag, but has played for the US and coached the US team. Above the discussion on nationality seems to state that players receive the flag for the national team they play for. Is this the same rule for coaches? Rballou 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love an answer to this one. One solution would be to follow the MoS for clubs and have no flags in the info box whatsoever (hence no need for a flag next to the manager). - X201 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd kit

Can the template be editted to incorporate a 3rd kit? Manchester City used their 3rd kit last season in the Premiership and many other teams have a 3rd kit. Obviously it would need to be optional for teams with just 2 kits. SenorKristobbal 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Teams with a third kit will generally use it no more than once or twice a season. I think mentioning the third kit in the text under Colours and crest should suffice, but overall I'm fairly neutral on the issue. Oldelpaso 11:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeh I think it would be better to keep the templates consistant and just mention it somewhere. Philc TECI 11:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Oldelpaso here. This would create more consistency. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-articles

A lot of the biggest teams' articles are growing such that multiple pages are needed. I was thinking that each club should eventually have pages as such:

  • Example F.C.
    • An overview of club history (not in full detail)
    • Club colours & badge explanation/history
    • Stadium overview
    • Honours list
    • Current squad list
    • etc.
I personally like Arsenal F.C. as an example except for the huge list of players and managers, both of which should be relegated to a sub article.
  • History of Example F.C.
  • Example F.C. Reserves (etc.)
    • Perhaps only for bigger clubs, but it is definitely preferable to having a large reserves section in the main article, see Liverpool F.C. Reserves
  • Example F.C. statistics or Example F.C. records
    • All lists of statistics should go here
  • List of Example F.C. players
  • Example F.C. stadium

I was wondering whether it would be worthwhile talking about such sub-articles and deciding upon some standards for them? aLii 11:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Captains?

What is the problem with having the club captains listed after the squad? It only takes up four lines. Stop being so pedantic.

Because there already is a function that allows you to list the captains in the squad list. The optional parameter other should be used for that, that is, adding |other=captain in the player template. Anyway, if you would have read the page, you might have noticed the text on the top saying "Please discuss any changes on the talk page before editing this page". – Elisson • Talk 18:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Players vs. Current squad section

I think there should be a players section with current players and historical players being sub-sections. What does everyone else think? Kingjeff 00:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline with previous league results

On the Karlsruher SC page I added a timeline of the team's previous league results, looking as follows:

Does anyone have comments on how to perhaps improve this, and are there policies against using such embedded stuff in wikipedia articles? Are there other teams that have similar timelines? eSk 13:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added two similar ones to the Boldklubben Frem page. Bagande 17:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internationals

How about incorporating this bit into the Records section?

Internationals Number of capped players (with Spain) - 18

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.40.37 (talk • contribs).

People are free to add whatever encyclopedic info they want into the club articles, but I do not believe that "last capped player" should be included. – Elisson • T • C • 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither should the first capped player be added as there are always 11 first capped players. SportsAddicted | discuss 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current squad: wikilinking and notability

The "Current squad" section of the boilerplate has:

As of 33 Thranuary 3333

No. Position Player
30 Flag of Earth GK Tom Templateo
31 Flag of Earth DF Tim Template
32 Flag of Earth DF Tommy Templatius (on loan to Template City FC)
No. Position Player
33 Flag of Earth MF Tom Template senior
34 Flag of Earth FW Templaldo (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
35 Flag of Earth MF Timmy Templaton

I think this has the seriously misleading implication that, if a club is sufficiently notable to have an article, than all its playes should have articles. Adding a wikilink to a nonexistant article is a declaration that you believe the relevant subject merits its own article. The result is that most articles about lowlevel clubs have a "current squad" section with 10 redlinks, and 5 links to sttubs that say nothing but "Joe Bloggs is a midfielder at Blogghamption Rangers", and are never likely to say more. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Players. I propose changing the sample to something like

As of 33 Thranuary 3333

No. Position Player
30 Flag of Earth GK Jack G. Obscure
31 Flag of Earth DF Tom D. Wellknown
32 Flag of Earth DF Bob D. Nobody (on loan to Template City FC)
No. Position Player
33 Flag of Earth MF Ron M. Unknown senior
34 Flag of Earth FW Mike F. Big-Star (on loan from MediaWiki AFC)
35 Flag of Earth MF George F. Amateur

Opinions? jnestorius(talk) 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For many clubs wikilinking every player is appropriate. To make the distinction, an explanatory note is probably needed, rather than attempting to make the point with player names. Oldelpaso 21:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note. Edit it mercilessly if you think it could be worded better. Oldelpaso 22:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I propose that the standard club infobox seen at the top right-hand side of each club's ought to contain more information. I noticed the template used by the Italian-language Wikipedia, an example of which can be viewed here, and found that it contains extra information such as the club's confederation, nation and association as well as providing a space for achievements, the club's city, an address and a web address. This is much more informative than that used on the English-language Wikipedia. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I favour keeping it simple. The majority of that information is the sort of thing any half-decent lead should include anyway: Template FC are a countryish football club from Template City, currently playing in the Wikipedian League. The Club has won the Wikipedian Championship once and the Jimbo Wales Cup three times. etc. Prose is more informative than lists. A large infobox increases the temptation to fill it out at the expense of the adding to main article text, the Italian Derry article is a prime example of this IMHO. Oldelpaso 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Oldelpaso. We have had several discussions before where people have proposed adding new parameters to the infobox but almost all have been opposed. Check the archives at the main project talk page as well as the infobox talk page for those discussions. – Elisson • T • C • 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree also. Even without the article, the details can be all retrieved simply elsewhere. E.g. the association can be determined from league, country from association, confederation from country, etc. And keeping the template simple avoids the need for mass maintenance if a club or country moves (e.g. Australia moving from Oceania to Asian confederation). John the mackem 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality rules

What is the rule/guideline for listing the nationalities in the Current Squad section? I'm asking this because ten players of CA Osasuna are listed with the flag of Navarra, while they have the Spanish nationality and play under a Spanish licence. At least three of them also play for the Spain national under-21 football team. The other Basque clubs in the Primera Division, Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao, do not use this format. AecisBrievenbus 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Navarra is not a sovereign country, but a region of Spain, so you should switch them all to Spain. --Angelo 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous fans

What's the consensus on whether club articles should include such a section? One's been added to Oxford United F.C. with some dubious inclusions (such as Bill Clinton). I've asked for citations but stuff like this is hard to verify in many cases. Dave.Dunford 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add a "famous supporters" section. Players, managers and coaches make a football team, not a number of alleged VIP fans. --Angelo 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove at sight. Unencyclopedic, and if worth including anywhere, it is in the article of the subject. – Elisson • T • C • 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article titles - FC vs. F.C. vs. nothing

There seems to be no policy on article titles for football clubs. Some use F.C., some FC. All Premier League club articles use F.C., which is odd since none of the official web sites I visited seem to use periods. I suggest that no periods should be used. WP:NCA says "There is no consistent rule about periods—in general, avoid them, unless the preferred usage is otherwise (for example, U.S., but UK)."

Also, according to WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be named with the common name used, unless disambiguation is needed, so I propose that "FC" (or similar abbreviation) be left out when unnecessary.

Examples
Article title Move to Reason
Arsenal F.C. Arsenal FC Remove periods, need to disambiguate from Arsenal
A.C. Siena AC Siena Remove periods, need to disambiguate from Siena
Blackburn Rovers F.C. Blackburn Rovers No disambiguation necessary - there are no other (notable) Blackburn Rovers
SV Werder Bremen Werder Bremen No disambiguation necessary
U.C. Sampdoria Sampdoria No disambiguation necessary
Brøndby IF - No change needed

Comments? - PatrikR 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of dots has come up a a few times before (check the archives of WT:WPF e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive7#Naming_Policy_of_Club.27s_article), IIRC the general opinion is that it would make sense to do so, but the question is how. It involves a huge amount of work and gives only a marginal benefit. The only rational way would be to use a bot.
The suffixes are used so as to keep consistency, otherwise there would be a hotchpotch of usage. It is not necessarily obvious whether or not disambiguation is required for a given club. Oldelpaso 10:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Wow, all that discussion and half a year later nothing has happened. Sure there would be some work to do, but "many hands make light work". — PatrikR 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To make it short, keep the FC, UC, IF, SV etc, but REMOVE THE DOTS IN NAMES FOR NORWEGIAN CLUBS. Punkmorten 18:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Suffixes are fine, but I really do see no valid reason to use F.C. when the common usage of it is FC. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your idea is good. However, I would not prefer the idea about nothing. My idea is full name is to show the official name to the others. KyleRGiggs 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I might agree only in removing dots where possible, but surely not in completely removing any abbreviation: indeed they are fully part of the club name. --Angelo 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME. The full name should of course be mentioned in the article, but the title should be the common name. For example, we have Bono, not Paul David Hewson, and United Kingdom, not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. - PatrikR 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as F.C. for English clubs as this appears to be the most common usage where any suffix is used - fchd 18:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any proof of that? Here are a few yahoo comparisons: (google doesn't work because it ignores the periods) "liverpool fc" - 2,670,000 hits, "liverpool f.c." - 174,000; "blackburn rovers fc" - 134,000, "blackburn rovers f.c." - 2,170; "ac milan" - 9,530,000, "a.c. milan" - 424,000
I think it's pretty clear that F.C. is certainly not the most common usage. - PatrikR 00:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Piles and piles of football programmes in my possession - after going through a couple of hundred before posting that last comment, I reckon in these F.C. or A.F.C. is two to three times more common than FC or AFC - fchd 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is an issue of presentation and style issue rather than one of nomenclature or regional dialects, IMO. The general rule on Wikipedia is to not use periods in initialisms and acronyms regardless of whether British or otherwise (e.g. FA Cup, FIFA World Player of the Year. I think for consistency's sake it should be applied to football clubs' names as well. So I say change to FC or equivalent. Qwghlm 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King's Park F.C.

Hi. I am needing a bit of advise on updateing the King's Park F.C., King's Park were once a Scottish Second Division club pre World War 2. They closed down after there ground was destroyed. I would like to include a info box on there page but I am unsure of what information to include as they no longer exsist. Here is my first attempt at the box :

King's Park
Full name King's Park F.C.
Founded 1921 - 1945
Ground Forthbank (Destroyed)

I would also like to include the pictures of there strips but I'm not sure how to create the strips. Gorillamusic 10:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current squad flag

Can someobody please make a rule for what kind of a flag should be used in this section. Many Kurds change the Iraqi flags to ethnic flags (Kurdistan flag), for example with Arbil FC. Chaldean 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What city names to use?

There is not much consensus on what city names to use for the main articles (i.e. not the ones that redirect) on football clubs. For example, the article about FC Spartak from Moscow is located at FC Spartak Moscow, but the article about FC Dynamo from Kiev is located at FC Dynamo Kyiv, or the article about FC Dinamo from Bucharest is located at FC Dinamo Bucureşti.

I propose using the English names of the cities on the main articles on the clubs. Why? I understand that it would not be a good idea to translate the actual name of the club into English (along with all those FC's, FK's, and CF's to indicate that it's a football club), but the city it comes from should be in English, since this is an English Wikipedia. FK Crvena Zvezda should be located at that page, not at page named FC Red Star.

Why I decided to post this message is because some club articles use English city names (like Spartak Moscow above), and some use native language names. If the city name is different in English, it should be used instead of native language city name.

ArtyxT C 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams and also the talk page of FC Dynamo Kyiv for the recent move discussion. This is a big issue and should most likely take place at the naming conventions page. Woodym555 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)