Football Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject on Football

Main pages
Main project (talk) Task forces and sub-projects Football portal (talk) New articles Cleanup articles Unreferenced BLPs Article alerts Popular pages
Football Assessment
Assessment department (talk) Assessment log
Format templates
Club articles Club templates National team articles National team templates National association articles National assn. templates Competition articles League season articles (Lua tables) Club seasons articles Country seasons articles Match articles Player articles Stadium articles
Other
Consensus Category structure Notability criteria Fully professional leagues (talk) Template list Sources and links Booklist Members Recognised content Vital articles Project milestones Did You Know? archive

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

It appears that assists/clean sheets are not included in the template table. Does it mean that we need to help remove the assists and clean sheets columns in all of the football player articles?--Miunouta (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assists and Clean Sheets should be removed per WP:FOOTY JMHamo (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then why my edits to Cesc Fabregas were undone? I removed the assists cells based on what you said.--Miunouta (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I included the old version and the new version below.

Old Version

Fabregas new stats table

--Miunouta (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is a 'Total' row needed if the player has only played for the club for one season (e.g. one-year loan spell)? What if it is the current season?
2. Do we need to add multiple 'Total' rows if a player has 2 or more spells at one club? For example, if the player has 2 spells at a club, should the second 'Total' be the sum of the first 'Total' and the second one? What if they have 3 spells at the same club?
3. Shouldn't the league cells/rows be merged if it's the same league?
4. Shouldn't the template include a Continental(e.g. Europe) column?
5. How are we supposed to indicate what cups the player has played for?
6. The situation where cup or other is not applicable is not demonstrated in the template.
7. What should the seasons link to? For example, should we link 2000–01 to 2000–01 Premier League or 2000–01 Template United F.C. season? What if none of the two exist?
8. Should season cells be merged if the player played at 2 or more clubs in one season? If so, what if they played in different leagues?
--Miunouta (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not in my opinion.

2. If they're physically adjacent in the table, e.g. a loan immediately above a permanent spell, I'd have just one total row for the lot. If they're physically separate, I'd have separate, independent totals rows, i.e. the second/third totals would not include figures from previous spells.

3. No. It's easier for a sighted reader to read along a line; if there are multiple rowspanned columns, particularly if the player has had a long career with several years at each of several clubs and changes of division don't coincide with changes of club, the eyeline goes up and down like a yo-yo. Also, I was told once by a reviewer with expertise in accessibility issues that many screen readers can't cope with rowspans after the first column, so mislead their users; don't know if that's still the case, but assuming it is, we shouldn't be recommending a structure that some users can't access.

4. Whatever's appropriate. Most players don't play in continental competition.

5. That layout, like the rest of the page, only gives a rough idea. Most editors would separate "Cup" into FA Cup and League Cup for players playing solely in England, or National Cup and {generic) League Cup for players playing in several countries. Whatever's appropriate. As with the European or Other columns, we can always add footnotes if necessary.

6. See 5. Omit whatever's inappropriate.

7. Assuming the club season article would be independently notable, i.e. club playing in a top or fully professional league, then definitely club season. It's considerably more likely to be relevant to the player, and by extension to the reader looking at the table and wanting further information, than the league season. If a notable club season doesn't exist, still link to it. redlinks are good; they encourage people to write the missing article. Link to league season only if the club season isn't notable.

8. No. See 3 and 7.

Another thing some editors do is to format a cell pair as colspan="2"|— (instead of zeroes) when the club didn't play in the relevant competition while the player was registered with them: e.g., as at Chris Burke (footballer)#Career statistics.

Thank you very much for setting out such a constructive set of questions. Not sure whether I should format my replies like this, or intersperse them with the questions. If people think interspersed would be better, please feel free to reformat, and copy my sig up to each reply, or ask me to do it, whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well answered Struway2. I like your approach. Can I just give a visual example of a career stats table, which I think is perfect and should be the template for ALL player articles that include a stats table.. Matt Green has a long career, played in many different leagues and cups and the way his table is formatted allows me to see what I need quickly. This is the standard we should be reaching to achieve in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw Chris Burke... a perfect example for European competition stats. JMHamo (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks so much for answering! I am sorry but I do have a couple more questions regarding the stats table. Please refer to tables I posted in the Assists/Clean sheets section.

9. Where should we include competitions like the FA Community Shield (1 round), the Spanish Super Cup (2 rounds), FIFA Club World Cup, UEFA Super Cup, and DFB-Ligapokal (abandoned)? 'Cup' or 'Other'?

10. It seems that people do not agree on whether or not assists/clean sheets should be removed. Assists are not included in Chris Burke (footballer)#Career statistics, but when I removed the assists columns in Cesc Fabregas, it was considered as nonconstructive and my edits were undone. So, what should we do?

Thanks!--Miunouta (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents:

3. & 8. I prefer merged cells. It's then easier to see (especially if the player has a long spell in one league) that it was each season the same league.

4. Only necessary if the player (or at least the club) took part in a continental competition.

9. Other.

10. Remove both.

For the others I agree with the answers above. --Jaellee (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I strongly agree with you on merged cells. Let's take Ryan Giggs as an example, it looks much cleaner and much easier for readers to see that he's only been playing in the Premier League since his third season at Man Utd because we used merged cells.

Could you please help improve the template I provided for Cesc Fabregas and migrate it to the actual article? Thanks.--Miunouta (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the career stats table in the Division cell we write Premier League, Liga BBVA and all.But how it is possible?Division should be like English first division,French second division etc.RRD13 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the discussion above, and the recent change reverted by myself as without consensus, it's clear that many people prefer not to repeat the division name on every row. However, what we can't do here is override Wikipedia's Manual of Style by recommending a style that fails WP:ACCESS because screen readers don't read rows with rowspanned cells properly, if that's still the case. It might well not be. Perhaps someone who supports this change could get confirmation from the accessibility project as to whether it's OK or not, then if it is, the change could be proposed and discussed here. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can anyone point me to the WT:FOOTY consensus that says that players' stats tables should be grouped by club instead of listing them chronologically? I seem to have completely missed this discussion. --Jaellee (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same here - It makes no sense for it not to be chronological. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voila - and as an FYI, this fresh discussion has spun out of Bladeboy taking personal offence when I dared convert this mess of a table more into line with our MOS. GiantSnowman 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]