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.

After a few tries at editing the John Terry and seeing it reversed [1]. Should not a player's break to join a club on loan be indicated in chronological order? My preferred style is followed in two of Terry's notable peers - David Beckham#Club and Ashley Cole#Club. The current John Terry#Career_statistics format of putting his loan spell out of order at the bottom, rather than neatly tucked in between his Chelsea seasons seems jarring to the reader, whose eye would naturally follow the 'season' column first, rather than 'club'? Queeninbriefs (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The career statistics here shows a mid-season loan and yet the statistics at the first club are kept together and the loan follows. It makes the team totals easier to calculate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard to do it the John Terry way - chronological but permanent spells not interrupted by loan spells. GiantSnowman 17:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz This may make it easier for the editor, but definitely not the reader. The reader will want to follow the career, year by year? The reason I changed the John Terry one to begin with was because I thought it looked like someone had been lazy and just tacked his Forest spell on, out of order. It looks sloppy. Queeninbriefs (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reader will get confused by loan clubs appearing in the middle of a parent club block, and wondering why the 'total' does not add up. GiantSnowman 10:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least one reader might become confused, but I suppose other readers would confused to see another team's data listed in the middle of a long stay. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per David Beckham#Club and Ashley Cole#Club the totals situation is solved by putting 'CLUB total'. Also, this policy seems to be in place to benefit the editor. I doubt the reader would get confused by loan clubs appearing in the middle of a parent club block. I have confidence in their awareness of the football loan system. The Premier League website lists loan spells in the middle of parent club blocks. See here Queeninbriefs (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This approach has been agreed-upon by the project. If you want to re-open it, you'll have to do so formally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Queeninbriefs: - saying 'club' total doesn't work for players who have had 2 or more separate spells at the club. Drop the stick. GiantSnowman 19:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, GiantSnowman and that is something that can be sorted out although not as a priority because it's not a very common occurence. Here are some more examples of leading football statistics websites who list season by season. Soccerbase, Who Score, FB Ref, TransferMarkt. Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those other than Soccerbase are deemed reliable (Transfermarkt especially), and Soccerbase actually supports our position, not yours, as in the career summary bit at the top it groups the club together with loan spells after. GiantSnowman 13:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Still, the Premier League supports my position. As does Fox Sports and NBC. I would not say it was a 'position' that time is linear. Queeninbriefs (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this debate concluded, or is there still a case to be made for mirroring the Premier League's own style of listing loan spells in the middle of parent club blocks? Queeninbriefs (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it has concluded with only one editor requesting a change to the current process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do only league appearances count for the info box?Muur (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because cup games for many older players are unknown, so the stats would not be reflective/accurate. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this policy currently stands, goal and appearance statistics for many other aspects of players' careers are being omitted: domestics cups, continental league, continental cups, etc. If we lack these related statistics for older players, might I suggest that we create a template that indicates this for those specific players? Eventually, we will face a situation where the players for whom we have complete statistical information will outnumber the players for whom we do not (if this hasn't happened already). This seems like a policy that will not age well, and does not accurately reflect the statistical totality of modern players' careers. I'd be happy to help with this endeavour! Tjbakerscala 22:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a policy, it's a style guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd defend the current policy, for three reasons (in a UK context, at least). Firstly, there are competitions such as the EFL Trophy that are technically first-team fixtures but often involve teams full of fringe players. Secondly, even the major cup competitions (FA Cup and League Cup) are now treated as of secondary importance by many of the bigger teams. Thirdly, appearances give an idea of whether the player made regular appearances in the first team over their time at the club, and cup appearances cloud that picture. Dave.Dunford (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to question what value should be put under "years" next to a club when a player leaves in the winter transfer window in the first days of January. Imho it makes sense to consider this window as lying really in between both years with the player playing for one club before the new year and the other club after.

Let me explain through the example of Sébastien Pocognoli. Standard Liège announced on January 2nd that his contract had been terminated by mutual consent and a few days later he signed for Union SG. In my view, he has thus played for Standard Liège from 2017 to 2019 and for Union SG from 2020 onwards as he has not appeared for the former club in 2020, despite his contract only being terminated on January 2nd (could even have been in December, the source does not specify!). Putting 2017–2020 as his years at Standard Liège is, in my opinion, misleading as an unfamiliar reader might expect this player to have finished the full 2019–2020 season at Standard Liège. I would like to propose that if a player leaves in the January window without appearing for a team in January itself, the period is set to the end of the prior year. Note that this January transfer window is an exception in that sense that I'm not proposing to only put the period in which a player appeared. Suppose Pocognoli's last match for Standard Liège had been in 2018, still I believe we should put 2017-19. Any thoughts? Pelotas^{talk|contribs} 19:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perennial issue at WT:FOOTBALL - the most recent discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 128#Start and end dates of spells in the infobox. GiantSnowman 20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if this template article should be either locked to admins or extended users only. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much in the way of unconstructive edits, but it wouldn't hurt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GiantSnowman, Govvy (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it needs locking just because one persistent disruptive editor is targeting it: better to target the disrupter. In general, most people who edit here are doing so in good faith because they think it's the right place to start a new article, and if they're directed to somewhere to get help with that, at Help:Your first article or WP:Articles for creation or the WP:Teahouse, they move on. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a template article to show how an article is suppose to be, setting it to extended users access will still allow others to see the code, but just not mess with it. The whole of 2019 90% of the edits to the article template seem pretty disruptive. Govvy (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have written in the documentation:

This page provides a suggested layout for footballer biographies. While nothing is set in stone, this layout is used in most of the best biographies as judged by the community, and following it is a good idea. Click on "edit this page" to see the page source, which can be copied and edited for new articles.

We could rewrite to tell people to copy the source to their sandbox instead. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like Struway2 I don't think there's sufficient disruption to justify protection. GiantSnowman 20:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should specify the order of the honours in this MoS. The proposed order is: [domestic_league], [domestic_cup1], [domestic_cup2]...[domestic_cupN], [domestic_supercup], [continental_cup1], [continental_cup2]...[continental_cupN], [continental_supercup], [global_cup1], [global_cup2]...[global_cupN], [other_cup]. Ergo:

1. Domestic (League --> Cup --> League Cup --> Super Cup)
2. Continental (Cup --> Supercup)
3. Global
4. Other

Thoughts? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And they require some indication of separation. See Pelé#Honours for a long list that makes no sense if it's not annotated in some way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughts on something like this?

Honours and achievements
Club
Club 1

• League: 2010-11, 2011-12
• Domestic Cup: 2012-13, 2013-14
• League Cup: 2011, 2012
• Super Cup: 2011
• Continental Cup: 2012-13
• Continental Super Cup: 2013

Club 2
etc.

International
Country U19

• International U19 Cup: 2010

Country

• FIFA World Cup: 2010
• UEFA Euro: 2012

Individual
Awards

• League Player of the Season: 2010-11
• League Team of the Season: 2010-11

Performances

• FIFA World Cup top scorer: 2010
• League top scorer: 2010-11
• League top assist provider: 2010-11

Records
Country

• Country all-time top goalscorer: 70 goals

Club 1

• Club 1 all-time top goalscorer: 100 goals

Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the formatting, it's a good idea. I think that breaking it down by club, as we currently do, makes sense, but a few thoughts.

The order is backward: a league win is less important than a cup win, which is less important than an international win. We want the most important to go first. For an individual, club first (in order of years played for the team), nation second, individual third, but then break it down by international, national, league, team. I would also accept that national cup is not as prestigious as league win in many cases.

Team 1

• Champions League
  • Champions: (2) 1960 Champions League, 1962 Champions League
  • Runners-up: 1964 Champions League

• National Cup
  • Champions: (3) 1961 League Cup, 1962 League Cup, 1965 League Cup
  • Runners-up: (2) 1960 League Cup, 1964 League Cup

• League
  • Champions: 1963 League

Team 2

• League
  • Champions: 1968 League

etc...

The same would apply to individual honours. Notice the bullets to separate pseudo headings, not big, and this results in no requirement for breaks. Don't forget en-dashes for ranges. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I agree with your formatting. Yes, Champions League is more important than the domestic league. No, the domestic cup isn't more important than the domestic league. I think the Premier League, for example, is universally recognized as more important/relevant than the FA Cup (or the Serie A/La Liga than the Coppa Italia/Copa del Rey). The order should be Champions League, League, Cup, League Cup, Super Cup. Also, I think that clubs should be ordered chronologically, otherwise we would have to change the order way too many times (if we were to do it based on the number of caps). I like the fact that you put bullet points, and that you put the number of titles in brackets, however I think the specific syntax should be the same as the honours section in club articles:

Team 1

• Champions League
  • Winners (2): 1960, 1962
  • Runners-up (1): 1964

Therefore, with the runners-up in italics, with winners instead of champions and with the season piped to just the year(s). Obviously en-dashes for ranges should be included, I was just lazy in my previous example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the logic for ordering and the order. Disagree with minor points of formatting as 1) italic should not be used per MOS:ITALIC, 2) the counts go after the colons, and the colons are outside the formatting and 3) we do not need to indicate when only one (1) award has been achieved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, consensus is that numbers below 5 should not be used as it is not that difficult to count that far. In any case, I think that the numbers are an insult to the reader (who obviously cannot be expected to count) and should be avoided. --Jaellee (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five would be acceptable to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of putting numbers below 5 isn't a matter of lack of ability to count, but of simplicity in being able to directly see the number of titles a club has won. If I go to a specific club, it's very easy to be able to see that they won 8 leagues, 5 cups, 3 league cups and 4 super cups (if we were to include the numbers between brackets). If we were to only add them for 5+ titles, at first glance I would see 8 leagues and 5 cups. Then I would have to count the 3 league cups and the 4 super cups on their own: with competition seasons usually being part of a date range (e.g. 2019–20), it would take a couple of seconds more to count the titles. The difference is between being able to see the number of titles in 0.01 ms, or in 2 seconds: obviously the difference isn't huge, but at this point we might as well help the reader out if we can.

Also, having all competition wins between brackets, regardless of the number, uniforms the width of the text "Winners (X):", so there is also a matter of formatting and design involved. Final point, a given reader who sees brackets for certain competitions and nothing for others will ask himself why that is the case: are the competitions not in brackets unofficial? Have they been revoked? Are they less important? We would have to add a note specifying that only competitions that have been won more than 4 times are included between brackets, which seems a bit pedantic.

Seeing something like the following...

• Champions League
  • Winners (2): 1960, 1962
• League
  • Winners (8): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18,
• Cup
  • Winners (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19
• League Cup
  • Winners (3): 2011–12, 2014–15, 2018–19
• Super Cup
  • Winners (4): 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19

...is much clearer than:

• Champions League
  • Winners: 1960, 1962
• League
  • Winners (8): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18,
• Cup
  • Winners (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19
• League Cup
  • Winners: 2011–12, 2014–15, 2018–19
• Super Cup
  • Winners: 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19

@Walter Görlitz:, regarding your 3 points: 1) italics doesn't make a difference to me, but at this point runners-up shouldn't be in bold, 2) I personally prefer the counts to go before the colons, as you are saying "Winners x5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5", not "Winners: x5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5"; also, I would rather have the (5) be in bold (I agree on the colons not being part of the formatting, so unbolded), 3) I have explained my point above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't mark them with any formatting. And we're talking about numbers in parenthesis. Most certainly one win does not need a number. If we have an existing consensus for no counts for fewer than five, it would take creating a new consensus to change that, particularly if we point to the original discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather have no brackets at all then have them for 5+. Also, what I was trying to say is that logically, "Winners: (5) 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19" is the same as saying "Winners: 5x 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19". The point is, we are syntactically saying "Winners five times: this year, that year, that other year...", not "Winners: five times this year, that year, that other year...". Anyway, we are just nitpicking. We both agree on the main structure of the honours section. We just need more people to give us their input. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could back a "times" sign, but, per WP:⋅, it should be × or an ×, not an "x". Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm not being very clear. I don't want an "x5" (or ×5), I was just trying to make an analogy. I want "Winners (5): 2010–11, etc.", not "Winners: (5) 2010–11, etc.". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my quick read. To clarify, your preference is not to have any count at all. I too can back that, but would still like to see the earlier consensus discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would prefer to have the count in brackets regardless of how many times the title has been won. Same goes for me, seeing the consensus discussion would be useful. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion on the WikiProject talk page regarding the layout of the "Honours" section in association football player pages. Input from other users would be appreciated, as consensus has yet to be reached. Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the section above, Walter Görlitz and I have discussed this issue, without (basically) any intervention from other users. The proposals are the following:

1. Rename section into "Honours and achievements", as other individual accolades also fall into this section
2. Divide the section into subsections (sub heading 1): Club, International, Individual, Records
3. Divide the subsections into: name of clubs/national teams for "Club" and "International", "Award" and "Performances" under "Individual", name of team under "Records" (difference between award and performance is that the first is something "subjective", such as a Team of the Season or Balon d'Or, while the second is "objective", such as a Golden Boot or player with most assists). All these subsections (e.g. "Award" or the name of the club) are written in bold.
4. Write the honour under a bullet point, and then the text "Winner" (in the case of team titles), in bold, in an bullet point underneath (I would personally not add the runners-up titles, but adding them wouldn't be too much of a problem to me)
5. Write the number of times the title has been won in parenthesis, regardless of the amount won, after the word "Winner", and before the colon, in the following manner:

• League name
  • Winner (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15

1. Order honours in the following manner: Global, continental, national: e.g. Club World Cup --> Champions League --> Domestic League
2. Order national honours in the following manner: League --> Domestic Cup --> League Cup --> Super Cup

This is how the section should look:

Club
Club 1

• Global title
  • Winner (1): 2015
• Continental title
  • Winner (2): 2010–11, 2014–15
  • Runners-up (1): 2012–13
• League title
  • Winner (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15
  • Runner-up (1): 2015–16
• Domestic cup
  • Winner (2): 2010–11, 2011–12
  • Runner-up (3): 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15
• League cup
  • Winner (6): 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  • Runner-up (1): 2015
• Super Cup
  • Winner (5): 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  • Runner-up (2): 2009, 2015

Club 2
etc.
International
National team U19

• U19 championship
  • Winner (1): 2008

National team

• World Cup
  • Winner (1): 2010
  • Runner up (2): 2014, 2018
• Continental cup
  • Winner (4): 2009, 2011, 2013, 2017
  • Runner-up (1): 2015

Individual
Awards

• League best player of the season (3): 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14
• League team of the season (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15

Performances

• League top-goalscorer (4): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14
• Super Cup top assist provider (1): 2011–12

Records
Club 2

• Club 2 top goalscorer: 100 goals
• Club 2 all-time appearance holder: 200 appearances

National team

• National team top goalscorer: 70 goals

These are my thoughts, with Walter Görlitz having slightly different ides on specific things. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no <big> templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used <big> instead of ===Sub-heading 1=== just for a visual representation. We would use a sub-heading in the actual section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Ah oops, didn't notice that it all fell under a single statement. I've taken care of it now. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would support this if the order went Domestic-Continental-International for club teams, and listed the senior national team honours above youth team honours. – PeeJay 18:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironic. That is the order that fought for that initially started this RfC. Not sure senior before junior makes sense if we are going chronologically ascending though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late to the party but I think the change just made to the template ia an unreadable mess. Spelling out "winner" is redundant, so is including "(1)" for winning a single honour. I'm also very at odds with all the formatting in bold, it should be limited to headings and not be used for bullet points which is poor style. All of this makes the section overwhelming and unnecessarily hard to parse. Changing the heading to "Honours and achievements" makes sense to me.

Also, while I realise it's been a while since the last comment here (24 February) should one assume a proposed change has gained the approval of the community when merely two other editors – have I missed more?, I count PeeJay and Walter – have agreed? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robby.is.on: so you would remove "winner" and "runner-up", removing the bold, and keep just the name of the title itself? For example, "Premier League (2): 2010, 2011" (therefore not displaying the runner-up titles)? I would include (1) for one honour, just from a visual point of view. It becomes much easier to see "(5), (3), (1), (1)" at first glance, therefore seeing that a team has won "5 leagues, 3 cups, 1 league cup and 1 super cup", instead of "(5), (3)". What do you think? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for your second comment, I have just been WP:BOLD. No one disagreed, so I just went with the (minor) consensus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't have a lot of people participating, so I don't know how sticky the consensus will be. I'm still unconvinced we need the physical headings, but do like the fact that the order is defined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove "winner", remove the bold and place both honours won and runners-up honours in the same line separated by a semi-colon. For example: "* Premier League (2): 2010–11, 2011–12; runners-up 2008–09". I've seen this done in most articles in recent years and it is clear and concise at the same time.

I'm not sure the numbers are necessary at all. Zinedine_Zidane#Honours_and_achievements is very readable.

Perhaps this RFC could do with a plug at the main WP:FOOTY Talk page? I would have thought people like @GiantSnowman:, @Struway2:, @Mattythewhite: – just to name a few – would have an opinion to share. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It 'is listed. I haven't commented as I have no view. GiantSnowman 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Zidane has only won maximum 2 of the same title. See Gianluigi Buffon#Honours, for example, who has won 9 (or 11, depends how you see it) Serie A titles, 4 Coppe Italia and 5 Supercoppe. In my opinion, either we put numbers to all the titles, or we don't at all. I don't agree with putting the brackets from 2+, but not for 1. 2 titles are just as (un)readable as 1, so might as well put the brackets irregardless of the number. As for the rest, I agree with you. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The number of wins was a previous consensus that we should honour. Linked above. 14:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, PeeJay2K3, Robby.is.on, GiantSnowman, Struway2, and Mattythewhite: do you all agree with the current formatting? (currently displayed on the page). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I was not pinged, I still think the the number of wins is unnecessary. --Jaellee (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Win count is unnecessary for both players and teams. Not sure club should go before international, but do agree with the ordering inside of those. If we're OK with club before international, I wouldn't complain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we either display all wins in brackets (1 included), or none at all, I'm happy either way. As for club/international, I think the fact that players play exponentially more games for clubs rather than national teams makes me think that we should put club above international (the same way we have club career, then international career; or club statistics, then international statistics; or club above national team in the infobox). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a recommended order is better than not having one: I'd prefer club before international, per Nehme above. As to formatting, it'd be easier to form an opinion with realistic examples: club and competition names (real or imaginary) and all the formatting (bolding, wikilinking, etc) you intend to be used. Otherwise it's hard to tell what we're having an opinion on. Personally, I'm happy with the Zidane approach: no bolding, other than what comes with the headings or pseudo-headings; wins and runners-ups on the same line; wikilink the seasons (if notable) and the first use of each competition. The only difference is the bracketed numbers: I used to be in the "5 or more" camp, and still think that's fine for those of us with good eyesight, but for those who haven't, bracketed numbers might make it easier to follow. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think, although I'm not certain, that most screen readers (used by the legally blind) will actually count the number of items if a list format is used, but that's an even greater deviation from current formatting, and I don't think any sport does so. It has become more common in the music project though, particularly in album track listings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They do if the underlying HTML is properly structured, but I can't see us mandating hlist format or whatever anytime soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in brackets?

Yes, keep numbers in brackets irregardless of number of amount won

• Serie A (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up: 2014–15, 2015–16
• Coppa Italia (1): 2011–12; runner-up: 2012–13, 2016–17

• Yes, as the reader immediately sees how many titles a player has won. Even for 1 title (see example above where, with the runner-up titles, the number of titles won isn't immediately recognizable). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Even if it is easy to tell when only a few items are in the list, why shouldn't we add three characters to make it easier for a reader to have an at-a-glance idea of how many titles the player won? And as Nehme1499 points out, it makes it more difficult to instantly tell how many items are in the list when runners-up are included (even if that is against my better judgement). – PeeJay 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, for the reasons given above, but perhaps only if greater than one. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, never put numbers in brackets

• Serie A: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up: 2014–15, 2015–16
• Coppa Italia: 2011–12; runner-up: 2012–13, 2016–17

• No Psychology tells us that humans can easily identify seven objects without difficulty. I'm sorry I don't have my introductory psychology textbook to offer support for this. We don't need help counting. See The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. And furthermore, if it is determined to be included, the count should go after the colon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychology tells us that humans can easily identify seven *simple* objects without difficulty. A list of digits is not seven simple objects, it is a string of about 40 characters that you have to look fairly closely at to discern the demarcation between them. Also, the count should go before the colon. – PeeJay 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it is, particularly when linked, and adding commas and spaced between them makes it even more facile. Each link is recognized as an object. As for counts, my physics text was clear that counts should go after colons and I lost marks for doing it the other way around. Unfortunately, that was the school's textbook so I cannot cite it. Why do you think they should go before the colon? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No most players win a particular honour not more then for example five times and in most cases even less often (at least in the articles I watch). So there will be many instances with the numbers (1) or (2) which looks ridiculous (as if we would not have confidence in the reader to count that far). I would agree to have numbers in cases where a player really won a honour more often than a given threshold but given the choice between having no numbers and numbers everywhere I vote for no numbers. --Jaellee (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No The readers can count (Majority at least if not close to all). Only if a player wins something often (not sure about the exact number) it CAN be used. Kante4 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No (soft): as per the above comments, I would say they should only be used above a threshold. Obviously that would be arbitrary but to me it's when it becomes difficult for the reader to tell at a glance. My opinion would be that is around 4. I would suggest no brackets for 4 and fewer, but have them for 5 and more. Crowsus (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if we were to introduce a threshold, then we should put numbers in brackets irregardless on the number. What I mean is, if someone won the league 10 times, the cup 4 times and the super cup 1 times, we would put (10), (4) AND (1). While if someone has won the league once, the cup twice and the supercup once, we wouldn't display them at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why most people are saying not numbers are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally keep the numbers irregardless. But, IF we were to establish a threshold (be it 4, 5, or whatever), THEN we could compromise in the way I stated above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if its only Yes or No, my vote is for none at all. Crowsus (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No Per Jaellee. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]