Template talk:Argentine Primera División

This template is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Argentine Primera División, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles

Football: Argentina

	Association football portal 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 articles
	This template is supported by the Argentine football task force.

Former teams

There are 88 former teams (see All-time Argentine Primera División table; 108-20). Listing all of them in the template would be insane, but the current version is not good either (why is, for example, Huracán de Tres Arroyos listed while Sarmiento de Junín is not?). I propose: we either establish a criteria (e. g. X seasons played in the division), or delete the "former teams" section altogether. Fache (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made the change [1]. I set the criteria at 200 games. Fache (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is arbitrary. What makes 200 games special? If they are not there, add them. Digirami (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current teams are arbitrary, somebody just added the ones he remembered. Now, are you seriously asking to put 88+20 teams in the template? Do you think that would be positive for the navegation? Could you respect my work instead of undoing my edit just like that? Fache (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference. The teams listed in the original version was incomplete. Setting a limit on the number of games played to be included is arbitrary. Include them all. That's the consensus. In South America, it's been done in the Peru and Ecuador templates. In Europe, England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France have done it, among others. Digirami (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about a handful of teams here like those templates have, we are talking about 88 (see All-time Argentine Primera División table). The old Campeonato Nacional has left us many teams with only 1 or 2 games in the division. Taken from WP:NAVBOX:

"The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?"
"They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value."

With that in mind, Atlético Uruguay and Atlético Santa Rosa (taking two blue linked examples) have nothing to do here. They have minimum relation to the division, and would only take up space, therefore limiting navigation.

I'm not married to any criteria, we could use games, seasons in the division, points, whatever. And it would not be arbitrary as long as there is consensus to its utility (just as the "one professional game" criteria for notability of footballers is not arbitrary as long as there is consensus for it). Fache (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing limited navigation with size. Yes, it will be a long list. But since former teams are separated and in alphabetical order, it is easy to navigate. Navigation in the Peruvian template, the closest in size to the Argentina template, is easy and not limited in any way. Digirami (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mere size is a limitation to navigation. That's why the cited policy says: "[t]hey should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value." We would be hiding an article genuinely related to the division (like Rosario Central) between dozens of articles of clubs whose only relation are a couple of games 20/30/40 years ago. Unless a reader specifically looks for Rosario Central, he would miss it.

Moreover, it's aesthetically horrible. We are talking about a mega-template with: 20 (current teams) + 88 (former) + 81 (seasons) + 5 (other articles) = 194 links (and constantly going up).

Taking two alternatives from WP:NAVBOX:

Collapse articles that are least related (with {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}). The teams with less than 50 games would be added, but the section would be collapsed.
Divide the template. There is already a {{Primera División Argentina Seasons}}, I don't see it completely necessary to repeat it here. Fache (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was bored and came up with this: [2]. All teams are listed, teams with a significant history in the division are not hidden between those barely related, and by putting seasons with <small> it's not such a a mega-template. I still think it's aesthetically ugly (I'm with a 120x720 resolution and it does not fit the screen), but I can live with it. Fache (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still would not be hard to navigate. The former teams, who are part of the history of the league, are clearly segregated and alphabetized to make it easy to find. Your latest version makes it hard to find a team with knowing how many games they played in their history in the league. Listing all the teams will be a lot yes. But finding any team is easy and clearly organized. It therefore is not limiting it navigation. Digirami (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are not only meant for people who already know what they're looking for. They present in an orderly fashion articles related to the main one. Listing 88 teams together alphabetically has as limited navigational value as, say, Category:Former Argentine Primera División teams. Fache (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC) New version: teams ordered alphabetically within each section: [3][reply]