Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Rupert1904 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
51,472 edits
Line 400: Line 400:
:::: I don't mind either way. But I'd welcome some arguments for and against… [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: I don't mind either way. But I'd welcome some arguments for and against… [[User:Robby.is.on|Robby.is.on]] ([[User talk:Robby.is.on|talk]]) 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: I had brought the discussion to the attention of the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Honours and achievements", or simply "Honours"?|main project talk page]]. Anyway, my argument for keeping "and achievements" is that we also include "non-tangible honours" such as "National team all-time goalscorer" and "Premier League top assist provider". [[User:Nehme1499|<b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><sub><small><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b></small></sub>]] ([[User talk:Nehme1499|<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>]]) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: I had brought the discussion to the attention of the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Honours and achievements", or simply "Honours"?|main project talk page]]. Anyway, my argument for keeping "and achievements" is that we also include "non-tangible honours" such as "National team all-time goalscorer" and "Premier League top assist provider". [[User:Nehme1499|<b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><sub><small><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b></small></sub>]] ([[User talk:Nehme1499|<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>]]) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: I agree that the section should just remain as honours. Including achievements is superfluous. Maybe in other languages, achievements means something different than in the English language, but including any individual honours covers this. [[User:Rupert1904|Rupert1904]] ([[User talk:Rupert1904|talk]]) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:56, 12 July 2020

WikiProject iconFootball Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject on Football
Main pages
Football Assessment
Format templates
Other

Order of honours

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

Club 2
etc.

International
Country U19

Country

Individual
Awards

Performances

Records
Country

Club 1


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

Team 2

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
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
  • 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
  • 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 &times;, 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]

RfC on Honours section

I am procedurally closing this expired RfC. I listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and an admin declined the close request with the comment "No request from participants. Discussion is stale and changes have already been made to the page as a result." There is more context for the declined close request here.

If any editor would like to close the RfC, they can replace this procedural close with their close. If any editor would like this RfC to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, they can undo this procedural close and make a close request at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 amount of titles 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]
  • Comment @PeeJay2K3 is offended that I modified the proposal above so that second-place finished were consistent in showing count. Sorry for offending the editor but WTF? It was a clear omission the proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway it's not important, since consensus clearly seems to be steering towards not including runner-up titles at all. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree that consensus is currently against parenthetical counts. This isn't an official RfC though. Where's the ID? This appears to be a proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not offended, so don't even bother trying to make this a "me" issue. You are not the proposer of this RfC, so it is not up to you to make modifications to it. It is misleading and also inappropriate considering people have already !voted. – PeeJay 20:01, 12 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]

Runner-up titles?

Yes, keep the runner-up titles

  • Serie A (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up (2): 2014–15, 2015–16
  • Serie A: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up: 2014–15, 2015–16
  • (vote above for brackets or no brackets)
  • Comment I think nominees for awards such as the Oscars/Grammys/Nobel Prize etc, and Olympic silver/bronze medallists may not share your opinion that they wouldn't / shouldn't even mention the fact of coming close to winning, even though they are also 'losers'. And as far as Wikipedia goes, award nominees and medallists are listed on the articles relating to the individuals/teams and the events concerned, and back in football the losing finalist teams in cups are also listed on articles for those competitions, of course they are, you can't have a final without two teams, not to do so would be stupid. So I don't see why the participants in those finals should be disregarded when it comes to listing those participations. Simply saying "they're losers, losers suck!" is immature, small-minded and disrespectful. Crowsus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly what Crowsus said, I feel offended that one would suggest runner-up in an FA Cup is not worthy. @Nehme1499: We already note cup medal runners up, but your title of Title is vague, we've always treated league and cups differently. There is simply no point in an RfC when we already have a working established practice that most editors agree on. Govvy (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus appears to be that bronze or sliverat the World Cup could be mentioned; particularly if the player was not involved on a gold medal team. However an annual tournament, such as the FA cup, is not as notable. I don't think a sourced second-place standing, again if there is no first place finish, would not be inappropriate. The discussion here has primarily been about should we have runner-up entries like the one displayed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Govvy: as I stated above, I'm not against specific situations. If Atalanta were to reach the Champions League final, all their players would have "runner-up" for the 2019-20 Champions League without any shadow of a doubt. Same goes for the 2 cases I cited above. But what's the point of showing a runner-up for annual domestic competitions, as Walter points out? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FA Cup is an historic competition, like many other cup competitions, many footballers have earned a runners-up medal and we have a duty to honour those footballers by correctly showing that in articles. I am also starting to feel this being rather toxic and you are lacking duty to what is true. To devoid an article of correct information is not only offensive in my view, but sadly will make wikipedia less of what is already is. I simply will not allow such action to be taken, and too suggest that players are losers, simply because they failed to win the cup even know being in a final. That really makes me feel sorry for this project. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been toxic, nor have I suggested that "runners-up are losers". There is a thing called prose, where details about the player can be found. We don't need to cram everything in the honours section, the same way we don't display cup appearances in the infobox, while having a more detailed "Club statistics" section further down the article. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes? What this vote on is unclear. No to second-place in the league, yes to cup runners-up medalists and to automatic promotions and play-off winners.--EchetusXe 14:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with EchetusXe. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't display the runner-up titles

  • Serie A (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18
  • Serie A: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18
  • (vote above for brackets or no brackets)
  • No, no need to display runner-up titles. Best to stay consistent and just keep the winning titles. An exception can be made for certain situations, such as a Spurs player being a runner-up in the Champions League, or a Croatian player in the World Cup (given that those teams would very rarely repeat that feat). Nehme1499 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! We're number two! Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unless finishing as runner-up results in promotion or a medal is awarded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as per Nehme1499. --Jaellee (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to leagues, because you don't get a medal for being second in those, but Yes for cup finals as the losing team does get a medal. Other than when the player or club has won that honour so many times that adding a losing appearance would serve little purpose (I would say 3+ is a reasonable threshold). Readers do want to know when a player was involved in a final, even if they didn't win it, particularly if that occurred several times. Sometimes that doesn't fit well in the prose or editors can't be bothered wording and sourcing it fully, so Honours section is useful for that. Crowsus (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Runner-up is just first of the losers. I can't think of any circumstance where listing the number of times a player was runner-up in a competition would be relevant. Major international tournaments, perhaps, but even then it's possible to just mention that in the article prose. – PeeJay 19:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Can only voice @PeeJay2K3's comment. I wouldn't list in my curriculum vitae that I was the second best at something. MYS77 ✉ 20:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are you people doing? Please do not remove cup medals from player articles, even if it's a runner-up medal. This is sick practice here and I refuse to vote. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Govvy: why don't you vote yes? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Govvy: Please read all the comments. If you vote yes then that's 5 votes to keep runners-up medals from cup finals and 5 to remove them.--EchetusXe 14:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to everything Crowsus said! Govvy (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Career statistics" section headings

Hi folks! Recently, we've been able to clarify a few things relating to players' articles here. Thank you in particular to Nehme1499 (talk · contribs) for initiating the discussions.

I'd like to settle another question: In the "Career statistics" section which of the following two is to be preferred?

a)

Club

International

International goals

b)

Club

International

International goals

In recent years I always assumed a) was consensus. Most articles look like that and our player template also did. But in early March PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) and I had a small disagreement at Park Ji-sung (edit history at Park) and they ended up modifying the template (edit history of the template).

Arguments I can think of in favour of b):

  • "International goals" are a subset of the stats shown in "international"
  • I was also told that "it is supposed to have an overall summary table as part of the main "International" section (which could be subsectioned off), and then goals would be a subsection of that"

Argument in favour of a):

For me, the argument in favour of a) carries much more weight.

What do others think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "International goals" can't be a subsection of "International stats", perhaps it should just exist as another table within the same section, rather than making it a subsection on the same level. It seems weird to have a table of international goals being anything other than a subsection of "International stats". – PeeJay 12:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Robby.is.on for the mention! The premise is that the "International" subsection of the "Career statistics" section should contain two things: a table with the goals per year of the player (see, for example, Lionel Messi), as well as a table containing the international goals (such as Roda Antar). So, in my opinion, we have two viable options:
  • We subdivide "Career statistics" into "Club" and "International". "Club" has the usual table, while "International" has the two tables (the year-by-year table above, and the goals below). No subsections, just a single section called "International".
  • We create two subsections of "International": "Year-by-year" (or something similar) and "Goals".
I'm open to any of the two. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever section the international apps by year table and the international goals table are placed in – usually an International sub-section of the Career statistics section – they absolutely don't need individual sub-sub-sections of their own. An adequate table caption is plenty enough heading. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Struway2:. I think removing the "International goals" heading makes a lot of sense and that table captions would suffice.
New proposal below, with frequently used captions:

Club

International

Appearances and goals by national team, year and competition

List of international goals scored by <player>

Is this something everyone can agree on? :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, table headings seem like a good compromise. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works. I've tried it out here if people want to see what it looks like in practice. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Irwin example is good, subject to removing the 'source' wording at the start of each section. We need season-by-season in-line citations really. GiantSnowman 13:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that would be necessary for an international year-by-year table, and I can't say that I've ever seen one referenced in that way. The source used provides a definitive record of his international stats, so it would be redundant repeating it line by line when one reference is sufficient. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Line-by-line referred to club stats, sorry. For international the reference could/should go next to the country name in the table, as I have done at Irwin. GiantSnowman 06:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Writing "Source:[1]" looks horrible. It makes sense if we had "As of match played 19 April 2020[1]" (for players who are yet to retire), but having a line with the word "Source" doesn't mean anything. Either we put the source next to each club, instead of each line, or we just duplicate the ref line-per-line. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on how it looks "horrible"? It presents the reference to our readers in an easily identifiable and accessible manner, and there's no need to duplicate a single, definitive reference like you did here. If we were to do that, there would be no need to have a separate reference column; the references live quite happily in the season column, which is what we've been doing for pretty much forever. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In-line citations make sense when the reference is sourcing a claim. Say, "Tim Template scored 10 goals in the 2011 season.[1]". The sentence should make sense on its own, without the source. Without the reference, we would have "Source:", which doesn't mean anything. A source sources a claim, and the word "Source:" isn't one. About how to display the refs, I don't mind, as long as we don't write "Source:" in a separate line. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be clear and obvious to the vast majority of our readers what "Source:" means. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guess @EEng found a solution. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may wire my fee to the usual numbered account. EEng 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A perfect solution. GiantSnowman 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be WP:BOLD and just apply the change. But only three of us have participated in this discussion, no one else seems to be interested... Nehme1499 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say that there is consensus for the following?
  1. "Career statistics" section with two sub-sections: "Club" and "International"
  2. "Club" contains one table, titled "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition"
  3. Source the club statistics on a season-by-season basis, placing the citation next to the season. If the source is the same for the whole table, then place the citation next to either "As of match played [date]" (in case the player is yet to retire) or the title "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition"
  4. "International" contains two tables, titled "Appearances and goals by national team and year" and "List of international goals scored by [player name]"
  5. Sourcing similar to the Club table
Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been discussion about avoiding rowspan in tables for reasons of accessibility. MOS:ACCESS otherwise, it looks fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everyone, for the fruitful discussion and thanks to @Nehme1499: for updating the template. :-) I also see the addition of a key about indication of goals scored by penalties, something I don't think I've come across in any article in my time here. Was this discussed somewhere? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the format from Featured Lists, such as List of international goals scored by Hassan Maatouk, or List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri. If we agree that it should be removed in the player articles, and kept just in the FLs, I'm ok with it. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having that at those pages but it's too much detail for the regular "Career statistics" section of a player's article. I'll remove it. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Club statistics totals

Wouldn't it make more sense to write "Clubname total" instead of just "Total" in the totals rows? For example, in this MoS, "Template United total" and "Template Rangers total", instead of just "Total" and "Total". This way, we remove any room for ambiguity. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any ambiguity if the club's rowspan includes the "total" row. Seems pretty clear to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Robby - especially as if a player has had two spells at a club, the totals are for the spell and not the club... GiantSnowman 19:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements?

Since when did Honours sections include achievements? I take it this is where the performance-related stuff and records have come from? I see there is an archived discussion above alluding to it, although nobody actually seemed to support the idea, yet it's been incorporated in the Player MoS. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite: @Robby.is.on stated, on 8 March, "changing the heading to "Honours and achievements" makes sense to me." Also, on 9 March, both I and Robby pinged you (and other editors), asking if the format presented was ok. Nehme1499 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But was consensus garnered on this change? Approval from one or two editors isn't grounds for paving the way for sweeping changes to potentially all football biographies. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section should be titled 'Honours' only. GiantSnowman 16:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either way. But I'd welcome some arguments for and against… Robby.is.on (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had brought the discussion to the attention of the main project talk page. Anyway, my argument for keeping "and achievements" is that we also include "non-tangible honours" such as "National team all-time goalscorer" and "Premier League top assist provider". Nehme1499 (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the section should just remain as honours. Including achievements is superfluous. Maybe in other languages, achievements means something different than in the English language, but including any individual honours covers this. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F967374211

Leave a Reply