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.

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]

Thanks! --Jaellee (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have 'taken personal offence' or questioned that you 'dared' to change something, merely questioned the logic of your position and the MOS, and stated my belief that it is confusing and a poor reader experience, consensus or no. Having read the previous discussion now I think the matter of chronology was glossed over anyway - the only mention of it was you saying it should be one way and Struway disagreeing. On that basis I think it's worth discussing more fully. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'example' table - which has now been adopted - clearly has it grouped by team and not by season. GiantSnowman 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this example table been "adopted"? Should I have revert the edit immediately, instead of asking for the reasons, especially since the edit was made by a long-time contributor to WP:FOOTY? To say it clearly, I don't agree to your edit and prefer the chronological order. The whole way of pushing this issue without clear consensus annoys me. --Jaellee (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...um, maybe because that is what was agreed at the discussion I have linked above? Just because you disagree with the consensus does not make the consensus incorrect. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion focussed on the columns, inclusion criteria with only scant attention paid to the issue of chronology as I'd suspect it was largely overlooked by editors as it wasn't overtly signposted that that was the intention. On that basis I think a clarification of consensus would be helpful on this specific issue. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means feel free to start a fresh discussion - but until consensus changes (if/when), please do not edit against it just because you disagree. GiantSnowman 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Group season in statistics tables by club or list them chronologically. Let's see what happens. --Jaellee (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple:

- Goal keepers and defenders should have the number of clean sheets they've made listed beside the number of goals they've scored

- Midfielders should have the number of assists they've made also listed beside the number of goals

I think that could better represent their achieved stats besides the number of appearances they've made and their goals (even if they're not a striker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.33 (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been already been discussed a lot of times with no changes in the consensus. I think the latest discussions can be found here and here. --Jaellee (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the template contains a link to Soccerbase. This is inappropriate because the website is a betting agency and the link amounts to free advertising. It would be better to replace this with a link to Premier League, which is the official body. Michael Glass (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - Soccerbase is considered a reliable source, and the Premier League website only covers Premier League games (unsurprisingly...). A better site would be Soccerway. GiantSnowman 12:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Soccerway would be better than Soccerbase . I make no comment on the reliability of Scccerbase except to state that it is a betting site, and that is why it is questionable. I do not believe that it is proper to put such a link in the template, especially when there are other organisations that could be used in its place, including BBC Sport, Premier League and perhaps Soccerway. (Soccerway does carry betting advertisements, but it is not a betting site as Soccerbase appears to be Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We won't fall for that one Michael. We know the reason you hate Soccerbase is that it sticks to the British practice of using feet & inches and stones & pounds, as well as metric conversions, for player statistics; whilst your favoured premier league site atypically uses metric units only. Wikipedia should not be used for pushing your views on how the UK should be forced into using the metric system alone. Baaarny (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very suspicious of Baaarny. This is the first of three edits made under that name as I write. The other two were to create a user page and user talk. I think that this is a sockpuppet account. Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think the template should include a link to any particular stats site at all. It's a leftover from the time when an external link to an appropriate stats site was considered sufficient for sourcing the player's infobox stats. Although many editors still think it's OK to do it that way, rather than either having a row-by-row-sourced career stats table or having one or more general references, in the References section, explicitly noted as source(s) for infobox statistics, it's not something we should be encouraging. Better to include generic ideas of what might be relevant: "link to player's personal website", "link to profile on current club's website", "link to full details of international career", whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support Struway2's proposal. We don't need a link to Soccerbase or any of the other possible links embedded in the template as if it's the prime source of all wisdom. We have Premier League, BBC Sports, Transfermarkt, Soccerway, Soccerbase and no doubt others that I am not aware of. All of them have their strengths and their weaknesses and arbitrarily singling out just one of them to put in the template doesn't seem to me to be warranted. Michael Glass (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removing one specific link. As a side note Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed that link. Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit summary: Just to clarify that although the passing observer might infer a causal relationship from the wording "Removed the link to the betting site following Struway2's suggestion", I'm sure you didn't mean to imply one. Struway2 never suggested removing a link to a betting site: you did. I suggested replacing all specific links with suggestions as to what sort of link might be appropriate, and will now proceed to do so. Struway2 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if my edit summary was misleading. I am glad that you have made your changes so promptly. Michael Glass (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]