Template talk:Infobox football league

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox football league template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes

Football

This template 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

Pyramid/Levels inclusion

Does anyone know (because I didn't when I created this template and still don't) if it's possible for the "Level(s) on the pyramid" field to display "Levels x to y" if the league has multiple divisions but just "Level x" if it has only one? Currently the Kent League page says "Level(s) 9" which looks really silly and potentially confusing...... 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change

In the A-League there is both the premiership and the championship, which are equally as important. At the moment, our infobox reads:

Current champions
Most successful club
Current premiers
Most premiers

It would be preferably if "most successful club" read "Most championships". Would anyone have a problem with "Most championships" being added as an additional (optional) variable? Also changing "Most premiers" to "Most premierships" would make more sense. -- Chuq (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds alright to me. "Most successful club" is a bit vague anyway, as it could be taken to mean the member club which has won the most total trophies (including cups), which is not what the parameter is intended to record..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with an alternative attribute - just change the label to "most championships" in all cases. I'm amazed this hasn't already caused arguments on league articles where the team with the most league championships isn't the "most successful" by some other metric. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with these changes if everyone else is? I'll give it another 12 hours or so ... -- Chuq (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have gone with the "add a new variable" approach. I've adjusted this to just change to old attribute, and add an alternative title for the variable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sorry I forgot to update this page with what I had done. Since removing the "most successful club" would break lots of existing templates, but you have used some trickery to get around that - so all is good! -- Chuq (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federation

the template includes the confederation, and the country, but i think a variable for federation is at least as informative.--24.93.148.113 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Status

Can we add the professional status of the league to the infobox ? (pro, semi-pro, amateur) TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information on "levels ="

I have a question about what this value should be. It is based on changes to USSF Division 2 Professional League. The league is the second tier in the US and includes some Canadian teams. Major League Soccer is above it and United Soccer Leagues second division is below it. There are several regional leagues on the tier below it. There is no promotion or relegation for clubs between the leagues. So the question is, what should this value be, particularly for this league. The template value is "levels" but the template displays "Levels on pyramid". It would be helpful to place some information on how this value should be used in the Parameters section of the template. In fact, it would be helpful for all the fields to have some information, but this parameter would be most helpful. Based on the section above, perhaps this parameter needs to be expanded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this parameter refers to the number of levels of the national league pyramid the subject occupies. Since the USSF Division 2 Professional League has only one division, I would suggest that you should write |levels=1. The only time I can imagine the value would be anything other than 1 is when a league has multiple divisions, as in The Football League (which has 3 divisions) or the Liga de Fútbol Profesional (which has 2 divisions). – Pee Jay 18:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought too, however see Football League Championship and 2. Fußball-Bundesliga. They both indicate |levels=2. We may need some clarification and possibly template adjustment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's meant to indicate which level(s) of that country's league system the league occupies - see Kent League, for example.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case,

the template should display the singular if there is only a single level, which I believe is the normal case, and
the help section should clearly indicate this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wide

This template can be very wide, due to the nowrap, and the length of the field entries. I believe that some of this can be reduced by reformatting it a bit, to move the labels above the fields. Does anyone object if I make some tweaks? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was impatient and made some changes. Hopefully this wasn't a problem. I was looking at a few pages on a laptop and the infobox was covering the entire width of the screen with a single column of text at the left. This format also seems closer to the old infobox. Let me know if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this for now because the move away from the old appearance was deliberate, and I'm sure that there must be a less drastic solution to the width problem. Got a test case? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see West Riding County Amateur Football League or West Yorkshire League for example. There are much worse, but this is one example. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the latter is particularly problematic; the former would best be fixed just by inserting line breaks before the parentheses IMO rather than reformatting the infobox. I would consider these pretty pathological cases. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the problem would be resolved by moving the dates to the label field, and/or disabling the nowrap formatting. I can give you links to dozens more, but that would require some time or some use of {{str len}} and a tracking category. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm: the problem only exists with multi-level leagues where we're trying to cram team name and level onto the same line, right? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the majority that I have seen thus far. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does the current sandbox look to you? Minor reformatting which should hopefully address this... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, although still not the best, but it will do for now. I made a sync with the sandbox and had to make some tweaks since the season shouldn't be displayed unless the field before it is displayed. Otherwise, it looked fine. Thanks for making the changes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been reverted and we are back to square one. :( I will try adding the line breaks again ...Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just have undone the revert, coming as it is from someone who should know better than to be summarily reverting template edits he disagrees with after his recent block. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organising body

Can we replace the Confederation field for something like organising body? Having it for a domestic league system is completely pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.147.248 (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levels parameter

I think the levels parameter should be changed to the singular ("Level on pyramid"), to make it clear that the field is for the level the league was/is at, else it can be construed as stating how many levels there are in that country's football pyramid. This does not preclude separate line entries to differentiate times it may have been at a different position in the 'pyramid'. I would change the explanatory text to say:

The level of the league in that country's football pyramid. If the league has operated at different levels over time, then all levels should be listed (together with dates they applied) Eldumpo (talk) 09:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that AFAIK the original meaning of the parameter was to indicate how many levels a given league had, rather than what step it was on the national structure, and as such it's used both ways right now. I agree that the newer definition is more useful, but we really need a sweep of the articles using it the old way (mostly leagues in the basement of the English non-league system) in addition to tightening the documentation here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. I see you are broadly in agreement (noting some tidying up will be necessary) so how can we go about making the changes to the template and docs. Is it OK to go in and just edit them? Eldumpo (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. If there's any significant opposition that will become apparent after deployment, though for the reasons given above I doubt there will be. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎. There are more editors there who may have some logical opposition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

Fields for average attendance and record attendance seem to be oddly missing from this template. Would it be possible to add them? — SwedishPenguin | Talk 13:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that's odd. This infobox is for the main articles about the world's football leagues, which cover the entire history of each league. Average attendances have increased dramatically as time has passed, so which average attendance would you be intending to put in this infobox? The one across the league's entire history? Just the most recent season? If the latter, that should probably be saved for that league's most recent season article. If the former, I don't see how you'll be able to source it, and even if you can, it wouldn't be very relevant. As for record attendances, I don't see how that is relevant to the league either, since the sizes of the grounds the league's clubs play in can vary widely, so the record would really just be for the league's biggest club. I don't see how this is feasible. – Pee Jay 19:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For average attendance it would of course be for the most recent season, and I don't see a problem with putting that in the infobox for the league article. It should at least be a possibility. Sometimes a number like that is hard to work into the text naturally, and the infobox would be a natural place to stash it. I don't see why that can't be mentioned both on the article for individual seasons, as well as on the article about the league in general. It would allow for quick comparison. In the same way, the statistic for the record attendance can be difficult to work into the text, and it would be nice to be able to mention it in the infobox. If you don't think it would work in some contexts, that's fine, but I think the possibility should exist in the template. And it most certainly isn't automatic that it would be the record for the largest club, because strange anomalies do occur, and clubs rise and fall. Also, there are a number of cases with increasing stadium safety regulations that stadium capacity has been reduced. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 21:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I want to mention on the infobox for Superettan that the league's all-time record for match attendance is 23,460 at an AIK–Gais match from 2005. That is an interesting and relevant fact to include in the article, and putting it in the infobox is a much more natural place to include that information than a stand-alone sentence in the intro or something. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 22:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I believe the standard rule is, if you wouldn't mention it in the main body of the article, you shouldn't include it in the infobox. – Pee Jay 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes a number like that is hard to work into the text naturally, and the infobox would be a natural place to stash it." Nothing should be in the infobox which isn't mentioned in the article. If you can't find somewhere to work it into the text, it shouldn't be included at all. I also agree that "average attendance for the most recent season" is not appropriate to the overall article on the league, although average attendance for the season would be suitable for articles on individual seasons -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are to summarize the contents of the article. Most articles don't discuss the current season's attendance. It would be even more odd to list a summary of attendance for every year. Not sure that we should be adding this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is talking about listing attendance for every year? Just the most recent year. This statistic seems so intrinsic to me to understanding the scope of a league, it eludes me why including it would be a problem. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is intrinsic to a league about how many people go and see its matches? Of greater value is the league's structure, such as how many divisions it has, how many teams compete in it, and so forth. Attendance is so far down the ladder (and it's a pretty long ladder by the look of things), it's hardly worth mentioning. – Pee Jay 23:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say you're looking at a country's league system which is divided into Division 1, Division 2, Division 3, etc. Looking at the infobox for Division 1, you can see that the league has an average attendance of say 20,000 and a contract with a major national TV network. Then Division 2 has an average attendance of 10,000 and occasional matches are broadcast of minor networks. Division 3 then as an average attendance of 3,000 and no TV broadcasting. The whole point of the infobox is quick access to facts that are common across multiple articles. Well, facts like these are highly relevant for comparing the subjects' significance. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 08:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't work that into the main body of the article, what business does it have in the infobox? Seems to me you're just trying to find a quick way to add bare facts to an article because you can't be bothered/don't have the skill to add it as prose. – Pee Jay 12:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 13:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the infobox is for comparison between different things of the same category. That's the business it has in the infobox. For comparing different leagues for the draw and impact they have. — SwedishPenguin | Talk 13:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State and TV Partners?

Why? Why without discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TV partners has been there for over 5 years, and now you are asking? Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the rest of the changes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are you asking about the rest of the changes over the last 6 years, or about |state=? the state parameter was needed to replace hardcoded infoboxes in hundreds of articles like this one. I will add a tracking category (Category:Pages using infobox football league with province, state, or region) so you can fix them if you don't like how they were converted. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the request was added when you made some changes on 26 May so it's specific to the edits you've made since: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_football_league&diff=610358637&oldid=593550678 . Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Premiers season parameter

In the A-League, there can sometimes be a significant amount of time from when the premiers are decided and when the grand final is played (crowning the champions). Due to the fact there is only one {{{season}}} parameter, the year of current premiers reads the same as current champions, even though the champions year should be that of the previous season. I propose adding a new parameter named {{{prem_season}}} or similar to allow for this. As I believe most leagues simply use the champions fields this should be the least disruptive method. I'm not sure if this has come up before so I thought I'd mention it here before going ahead and being bold. Cheers, timsdad ^(talk) 12:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and gave it a crack. Hopefully there are no issues. --timsdad ^(talk) 13:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "follow owned" a typo

I see "follow owned" in other_countries. I don't think that makes sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edition

@Walter Görlitz:Hi. I fixed the issue. It just lacked an extra ]. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The league articles seem to be correctly formatted now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 24 July 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the upright parameter to all instances of Module:InfoboxImage in this template. Jonteemil (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Okay, I did my best trying to add it. You may check if it looks good.Jonteemil (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsor param

The sponsor parameter throws an unrecognized param error on preview. I've added it to the test cases. Should it still be used? Why is this error generated? -Socccc (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leagues

the parameter leagues isnt listed on the template page Michael H (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i would even say a lot of parameter are missing or lack a simple desrciption Michael H (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

even with parameter sponsor enterd, the warning that its an uknown parameter appears Michael H (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding current_season moved to subheader

I don't think moving current_season to subheader was a good Idea. It was better at the bottom. Sherifkk (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas tournament deprecated?

Receiving the error message: unknown parameter "overseas_tournament". Has that field been deprecated? Any plans to bring it back? Seany91 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]