Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
This page is a soft redirect.

Please create new discussions on the general WikiProject Football talk page. The discussions below are kept only for historical value.

Discussions 2007–2014

First, I'd like to start reinforcing my total disappointment with those editors who discuss this initially by intentionally (as stated in the proposal discussion) do not warn the contributers to club season articles "due to possible resistancies from users who maintain such articles". I think that is disruptive, creating a separation between those editors who often access this talk and those who don't. ~~I really hope that is not the common practice here.--ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Current proposal

So, with the participation of most of the contributers to club season articles, we could see if the original proposal has consensus or not. I've created a contra-proposal to show there is other ways to define this MoS.--ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm trying to invite as many contributers as possible.[reply]

Do not agree - There is much more good information to include in a club season article than the current proposal.--ClaudioMB 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the proposal by Angelo, myself. The proposal ClaudioMB has made contains way too much useless information. In fact, I was planning on changing the Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08 article so that it looks the same as the other Manchester United season articles (albeit perhaps with larger text, per the discussion). I'm sorry, but ClaudioMB's proposal looks like something you'd find in a magazine, not an encyclopaedia. - PeeJay 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe some editors do not know, but Wikipedia also incorporates elements of almanac, as defined in Wikipedia:Five pillars. No wonder there isn't a Wikimanac.--ClaudioMB 17:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the season articles you created don't even look like they belong in an almanac. A lot of the information seems very generic, and rather unrelated to the season at hand. - PeeJay 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify those information you are talking about? Thanks. --ClaudioMB 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#STATS. --Angelo 17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that structure and articles are "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles". Also, that structure and articles do not obstruct that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", it just a question of editors be aware of it and improve them. Last, those articles follow that "Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.". --ClaudioMB 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, what about FC Barcelona 2006-07 season? Your proposal is clearly inspired on what you did there, and that article is a cluttered repository for notable and non-notable statistics which often defy from the main subject. And, last but not least, where is the prose? --Angelo 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say my propose is based on all articles listed here. As you can see there are some sections that are not used on FC Barcelona 2006-07 season and FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. FC Barcelona 2006-07 season was the first one I created, I haven't give any attention to it since the 2007-08 started, and yes need some improvement. I was always open for any discussion in the article's talk page. About the prose, yes, it needs some prose, I could try to do some later and I'll be very happy if someone also could contribute on that. Also, lost of club articles probably need more prose, but that doesn't make them unreadable or useless. --ClaudioMB 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify to Angelo and other editors: just entering a policy as argument is not a good way to do it, as explained here. ClaudioMB

Unfortunately, this is not a "deletion discussion". --Angelo 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still useful here, otherwise how you expect editors understand others' point, without an explanation. If you think your argument is true, it will be not a problem to rationalize it. --ClaudioMB 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--ClaudioMB 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For clarification, I created FC Barcelona 2006-07 season and FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. All others were created by other editors based on FC Barcelona 2007-08 season and I am contributing to them.--ClaudioMB 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - I'd like to propose to put aside those two proposal and start discussing the structure of the MoS. After that, a discussion about each section. That means, move the current content of MoS to a subpage and replace it with a structure that will be discuss here in the talk page. I'll try to invite every contributer to club season articles to participate. That could that long to find a final MoS, but, with all editors participating, it will receive more good ideas and the MoS will be better accept by the community.--ClaudioMB 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like an amalgamation of the two, Angelo's lacks some information (disciplinary record, results summary, results by round) that I would like to see in an article. Some information from Claudio's possibly isn't strictly necessary for a season review (formations, most frequent start), to make them optional is good. As for style, I think Claudio's Template for matches is excellent. Especially as it hides the details of the match which can be expanded. This removes the varied width of tables issue (with many scorers). I also like his results by round, and results summary templates. I personally don't really like Angelo's results table, but I do prefer his player details table over Claudio's - not sure if it has a template. I mainly edit the Argyle season and started to use Claudio's templates for convenience and consistency with other teams. Just my $0.02 Mphacon 15:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS tag

Maybe creating a tag to be posted on the top of all club season articles warning about this MoS and about the possible huge consequences to the article could be a great way to warn and invite editors.--ClaudioMB 15:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Process

I'd like to propose the following steps to define this MoS:
1. Categorize all club season articles in order to have all article that will be affected by this MoS easy to access;
2. Warn and invite editors on all club season articles;
3. Restart this MoS discussion by moving the current proposal to a sub page;
4. Start the discussion by the defining how should be the title;
5. Discuss the structure to be used;
6. Discuss the style to be used;
7. Discuss each section or group of sections.
--ClaudioMB 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Changes

1) I suggest a league table should be added ala 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season. I don't believe the full table is needed as it is already shown on the league season pages.

Pos	Club	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
6	Tottenham Hotspur	3	2	0	1	2	1	+1	6
7	Manchester United	3	1	1	1	4	2	+2	4
8	West Ham United	3	1	1	1	2	1	+1	4

Pld = Matches played; W = Matches won; D = Matches drawn; L = Matches lost; GF = Goals for; GA = Goals against; GD = Goal difference; Pts = Points

2) Kits should appear in the infobox as that seems standard in most articles that already exist. Instead of in a section in the main text.

3) Friendly matches should be included if source-able.

Cheers, VanguardScot 11:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the proposed:

1) Agreed. However with clubs participating in competitions with a lower number of participants, I feel no reason to limit the table to just a section, i.e. 2013–14 Adelaide United season
2) Agreed.
3) Agreed.
I will also list a few proposals of my own below. -RedsUnited ^(Talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most points, having 2 above and 2 below in the table might work as an alternative to only one on each side. CRwikiCA talk 17:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my thoughts.

I agree with above about listing two teams above and below in the league table.
Agree that friendlies should be included.
For listing fixtures I think wikitables, like this or this are preferable to the football box collapsible template, like this, which takes up a huge amount of space and includes a fair amount of unimportant and over-linked information.
Similarly, I think a simple wikitable is better for displaying appearances and goals, like here rather than the enormous Efs template like this. It also removes the need for any extra tables for most appearances, top goalscorers, discipline etc. T 88 R (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I'm quite fond of the collapsible template for match fixtures. It provides the most thorough information without being too obtrusive, hence the collapsible nature of it. These ARE season pages after all, so the more source-able information provided the better. - RedsUnited ^(Talk) 01:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further observations I have:

I noticed that in certain season pages (mainly Australian articles), team colours are used in fixtures. I don't understand the logic behind this as it seems superfluous to the actual article. What are other editors' thoughts on this? I'd rather get rid of them completely. - RedsUnited ^(Talk) 01:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with Australian football, are the flags in that specific article used a lot in Australia? If not, there is no point to using them for sure. If they are extremely common, and the most typical identifier for a team, a case could be made to include them. I personally would probably not include them, and I would need pretty convincing arguments to see them as useful in any way. CRwikiCA talk 09:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: yep league table, friendlies and football collapsible box should be used per RedsUnited. About the club colours, they are used in most of the season pages in the A-League (except Adelaide's, which is edited mostly by RedsUnited). they are easily recognizable and distinguishable and serve to give a more visual aid as to the teams. I myself while editing have found this very helpful. Another point I wish to raise is after a disagreement between me and RedsUnited. I added the Womens' league and National Youth League to the Adelaide's season page, and was quickly shot down, with the claims that the Women's already has a page (it doesn't, only last year) and the the Youth League is not notable. About the Women's league I might see a point of having a separate page if there was enough stuff to go there but looking at the page it is just a list of players and fixtures, which I think can easily put in the page with the A-League team, and I see no reason the Youth League isn't notable... also having them all on the same page makes sense as they ARE the same club. with coaches and players moving from one to the other (less so with the men/women :P). Thoughts? --SuperJew (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I want to display up to 8 competitions data by using Template:Extended football squad player.

For example: in 1994 Verdy Kawasaki season (February - December 1994), Verdy Kawasaki played #1 J.League (Domestic National League), #2 J.League Suntory Championship (National League championship play-off), #3 Emperor's Cup (Domestic Cup), #4 J.League Yamazaki Nabisco Cup (League Cup), #5 Xerox Super Cup (Domestic Super Cup), #6 Sanwa Bank Cup (J.League International Challenge), #7 Last year's Asian Club Championship and #8 Asian Club Championship (Continental Championship).

Dabbler (JPN) (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers table

That's a terrible example of a table, released players are not transfers and should be in a separate table. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@seasideer53@Muur @Skyblueshaun@Joseph2302@EchetusXe Trying to regain some traction on this discussion which @Govvy caught on to years ago. His recommendation at the time was to add another table besides Transfer Out, but it appears there was no discussion on this. Now it appears, based on this [1], that editors need to determine whether or not the way it is recommended on the template should be used, or should we make changes to the template, or should we allow all of the club season pages be different. Thoughts? Demt1298 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i prefer to stick to how its currently done, no one really complained and itd be a lot of work to go through thousands of season articles for every country and every league in the world for something that doesnt really matter.Muur (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say stick to how it is, as long as the player joins a subsequent club in the same transfer windows. If he joins outside or in a diffenent window then I would say leave blank. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've setup the format on some Tottenham season articles which was started first on 2017–18 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, and reflected all the way to this current season on the Spurs articles. Govvy (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If released, the "To" column should have no discerning information. The interested reader can follow the player's subsequent career via their article. Adding a club means people reading the article in the future will be fed the wrong information if they don't look at the footnote or whatever ridiculous option is used to track their career thenceforth. Journalists might perpetuate this incorrect information if they don't look more closely. So, definitely no additional table for the purpose of updating a player's choice of club well after they were released by their last club, for the love of Pete. Seasider53 (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Muur and Skyblueshaun. It would be a simple correction though to remove the word "transferred" from the recent season articles. Player X was released, and went to club Y, no confusion over being "transferred to" club Y. I mean as far as I can tell last season articles said "to/from" and only this season they suddenly say "transferred to/transferred from".--Echetus Xe 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both points of view: technically it's correct that the player is released or allows their contract to expire so 'to' is misleading, but IMO most readers will be interested to know where the player went. My suggestion for compromise would be a {{efn|note beside Released saying "joined Xtown United"<ref for this signing/>}} (have to say I do love efns, slightly fiddly but nothing compared to some formats, and allows links and refs within the note). Crowsus (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across the 2023–24_Southampton_F.C._season#Transfers section (which may I add have never edited in this section) which I believe is a good idea on who ever made that wikitable. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It hurts my head. If somebody fails to edit that table, players will remain unattached forever. I don’t get why we are making unnecessary work and increasing the chances of wrong information being provided to the reader. It seems season articles will forever look like whatever the flavor of the month is, regardless of attempted standardisation.

Separate tables for released players is better than them being treated as direct transfers in the corresponding table. Seasider53 (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that may be the best way forward, everyone has their own opinion on the situation, so if we had a separate table in the section for the released/out of contract players and have a column for "subsequent club" like in the Southampton season then the information for the reader is clearer. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, but I am not sure, I really didn't have much interest where a player went after they were released. So it wouldn't really bother me if where they went to afterwards was removed. It would also make the data a cleaner option. Regards, Govvy (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding a small note, as done here to released players? This is how we do it in a lot of French football articles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Paul Vaurie: But that's a horrible table! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the rowspans, I don't see what's wrong with it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again a released player is not a transfer, you have released mixed in with transferred players, and loans mixed in with transfers. Loans, released and transfers should all be separated to their own tables. A loan return is not a transfer either. There are so many things wrong with both those tables there. It's always with Transfers as a heading, a correct and true heading would be Contracts and transfers. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just being pedantic. In Italy many transfers are loans with an option/obbligation for puchase (basically, transfers with defered payements). The main information that should be conveyed is: which players are in the roster this season who weren't in the roster last season (or, vice versa, which players were in the club last season and left this season). The nature of the contract isn't important. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, a loan means a player has to return, regardless if it turns into a transfer. Clear and precise information is what wikipedia should do. As for who is in a team is really a different set of information. Govvy (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the reader really cares about the technicalities of the contracts. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We care about accurate information, which this is not. Seasider53 (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is inaccurate about the Saint Etienne table? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again a released player is not a transfer, you have released mixed in with transferred players, and loans mixed in with transfers. Loans, released and transfers should all be separated to their own tables. A loan return is not a transfer either. – Govvy, Wikipedia, 2023

And then you started talking about Italian football. Seasider53 (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then call the table something else if it annoys you. No reason to separate permanent deals from loans. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent argument. Several reasons have been given. Seasider53 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Why have we setup a separate discussion for this, when the one at WT:FOOTY is still ongoing? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I have the following feelings about outgoing transfers.

I have no issue whatsoever with subsequent club being included alongside a released player's name. It feels obtuse to do otherwise, people will be coming to Wikipedia with the expectation of finding this information, ins and outs are a part of football and users are unlikely to understand a handful of editors applying quite a hardline interpretation of what constitutes the correct information that applies to a season. Also, while some inconsistencies are fine, you'd also be introducing quite a major one if you introduce this versus our previous seasons, and you'd also be fighting a losing battle with the majority of editors, especially IPs, trying to enforce it.
I also don't have an issue with the released players being in the same table as other outgoings BUT if editors feel this would introduce a greater level of clarity and end this problem then let's just go ahead with that (with the acceptance you might not see it applied entirely consistently).
With regard to how long one should allow for a released player's new club to be included - I have no issue with a season. I'm a little cautious about the August window as you'll send a number of free agents sign for teams in the autumn or even later into the season, particularly those dropping into non-league. However, I do tend to think we can offer some clarity on what the standard is. So under the sub-heading for "out/released" (whatever we choose to go with), I'd suggest saying something like "Where a player has been released, the club they subsequently joined is listed, provided they signed during the 2023-24 season". Alternatively it could be footnote under the table. You could leave it to the discretion of the article's editors whether they add in any further clarification via footnotes - i.e. any player signing after the start of the January window gets one acknowledging a period of free agency.
Some articles have the new club's division for any outgoings. I think that's fine, but should probably be optional.
Summer player releases should be in the article for the upcoming season not the previous one. A minority, i.e. this season's Reading and Birmingham ones put them in the previous season and I think that's ridiculous. While I'm fine with certain inconsistencies across how we style these tables, I think this is definitely something we should have a standard on.
For releases, either scholars shouldn't be included or they should be noted as such if that information is known (i.e. "Released (scholar)"). Most club release lists do make the distinction between them and young professionals, but some mass them into a single academy entry. You're probably fighting a losing battle to not have scholars whatsoever, so I'd err towards it being fine as long as everything is cited (which it normally is).
For incoming signings, I'm fine with including a free agent's previous club, I'd maybe consider restricting to displaying it only they sign within a window where they were released (this is how the BBC list transfers on their transfers page). I'd consider having "Free transfer (released)" (or similar) as the standard for transfer type here (it also offers distinction between free agency and someone in contract moving for no money), and again, you might want to consider some sort of note above the section offering users clarity on the criteria.
Some incoming signings have club section columns - first-team/under-21s etc. Obviously for the big clubs this is implicit a lot of the time, but I'd only allow it if the club is consistent in stating "X player joins our under-21 team" in their announcements.
Probably a losing battle again trying to stop any players signed for the under-18s being added to incomings. I think the best you can do is apply the standard that it's for a fee (which is likely the only reason it'd be reported/you'd get a cite anyway) and there's no-one younger than that, i.e. pre-scholarship age (and those don't tend to get reported in club media anyway, so you should be fine).
Other things that irk me: 1) putting brackets round a player's previous/subsequent club if they were released (the note thing/clarity in the transfer type is so much neater!) 2) leaving the subsequent club blank for releases, but then putting in a mass of footnotes under the table detailing the club anyway, like in this Crystal Palace article. Just put it in the table and set out your criteria in a note! We really should try and get rid of these styling quirks that have crept into various season articles.
Not really a big fan of row merging for players released on the same day/joining the same club etc. I think that ultimately it makes the table less readable.
If changes/standards are agreed here should be reflected in the suggested style guide on this project page, which has barely been updated in a while doesn't seem to reflect common practice.

That's enough for me, I reckon. Hope it all makes sense. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some good opinions their, HornetMike. I defintely agree with all the above you have mentioned and think it is a solid platform to go on. --Skyblueshaun (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Player details table

Total column should be on the other end, not the start column of the table. Someone wants to fix that. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Efs start & Efs player templates are protected, so that only template editors and administrators can edit them. Have you tried opening a discussion in either of their talk pages or submitting an edit request? Deancarmeli (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that template should be used here, it's kinda limited. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it limited. Apps and goals are all the details we need. We wouldn't include cards, assists, etc. anyway. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Regardless, the total column is still the wrong! heh. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I like it as it currently is. The total number seems more important than any of the other 3 and it is nice to have it near the name column. I would even have it highlighted, to enhance it. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(also acceptable results format for all matches) sub heading.

I am not sure why Stevie fae Scotland has tried to remove a simple format twice. It's just showing what can be done. And it doesn't violate MOS:ACCESS. Obviously a conversation would need to be opened up about it. But there is no problem with the formatting and it's on thousands of articles. Govvy (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page. Previous consensus has been against the use of collapsible football boxes in these articles (see here, here and here as well as this featured list nomination). The reason it violates WP:ACCESS is how screen readers process it and specifically WP:DTT. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a screen reader? I do, it doesn't have a problem. The, those posts are not consensus, and this page is a style guide, not a content dispute page. Govvy (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an attempt to solve the ACCESS issues in the template? Having season results lists match the general format of those used in tournament articles is a benefit to readers; the table format is fine but loses details and has little room for important notes (such as postponements and outright cancelled fixtures). Sounder Bruce 05:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. I would like to think so given it has been raised often enough but I don't know. I wouldn't know where to start with the lua modules either otherwise I'd give it a go myself. I would say though, there's no reason to not expand the table if required. The table at Argentina national football team results (2020–present) has extra columns for opposition scorers, referee etc, for example. There's also no reason to not add a row with postponement or cancellation detail (see 2022–23 Kilmarnock F.C. season#Premiership as an example). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile and small readers don't see any collapsable options, it's fully expanded. Access readers read all the data. Template has been flushed out for this. It houses more information in the template you want to remove. As for general tables, they are limited on information. Govvy (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there is nothing stopping anyone adding more information to the table should they want to. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]