Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Double nationality

This format does not contemplate the posibility of a player to have more than one nationality. Is there any other more promer template? Ideas to fix this? Mariano(t/c) 11:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read (and possibly comment) the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs. --Monkbel 11:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in some cases dual nationality has been mistakenly applied. For example, in the Real Madrid squad, Zidane, Beckham, Gravesen and other players from EU countries have both their national flag and the EU flag displayed; however this is not really dual nationality since it is impossible to be a French, British or Danish citizen and not be a citizen of the EU at the same time. One automatically implies the other - the EU flag is an unnecessary addition.

That does leave the remaining players, usually from South America, who have acquired Spanish citizenship through two years' continuous residency (as I understand it). But they are in a very small minority over the whole of Wikipedia and I do not think it prudent to make the template even more complicated than it is for their sake. Either you can just assign them their primary country (after all, very few people would describe Ronaldo as "Spanish" instead of "Brazilian"), perhaps with an asterisk or footnote explaining they have Spanish citzenship too, or create a template especially for these exceptional players. Qwghlm 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Debatable?

I believe there is a great feeling among some editors that the template is lacking somewhat not only in detail, but also aesthetics. It is clear that the primary editors of Newcastle United F.C. & Sunderland A.F.C. as well as those of West Ham United F.C. have reservations about the template in its current form, as date signed & previous club on the main page are deemed as essential club information. The first thing anyone wants to know about are the players. As this "standard" is not universally accepted, I believe a greater consensus has to be reached before the template is "imposed" on all club pages. Please check an earlier version of West Ham's page (before the conversion was made with no explaination-rant rant). Incorporation of club colours would perhaps help the aesthetics issue. Spyrides 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (talk)

Well you don't have to use it if you want - the template and manual of style are just guidelines, not policy (although by my count over a hundred football club pages do use it without any fuss) and no-one can actually "impose" it. For what it's worth, I think the tables of the kind used on West Ham United F.C. etc. are immensely ugly - the broad white lines between cells make it hard to navigate and read and break up the squads; the custom colour schemes are ugly and make the headers hard to read, the table format is a pain to edit and update, it takes up far too much screen space and provides unnecessary information (all that's needed are the players, numbers and positions - details of a player's previous clubs and full career are best covered in the articles themselves)

Reworking the top row to custom colours is not too hard (as long as you use {{qif}} to make sure it defaults to a colour if none are provided) and has been mooted before. It's best to ask Angelo for his views, as the template is his creation. But I would not want any futher customisation than that, else we could end up with horrible colour schemes ruining what is currently a simple, clear and compact design. Qwghlm 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the template has never been imposed, but instead realized and longily debated, so its use is (of course) strongly recommended, and the "great" consensus you talked about have been already reached (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs for details). The strongest line, which I clearly belong to, has been to make a simple, small, easy to maintain, but powerful template system. I have took a look at the way the squad is represented on the West Ham United F.C. article, and sincerely I don't think it would be particularly easy to maintain it up-to-date, and in my honest opinion it does not even look better than the proposed one. And, you know, today I have updated all Italian Serie A squads, after the end of the Winter football market. Probably I would not ever finish it in a couple of hours without our template.

So, you see, there are so many advantages to have this template set. I think it'd be better to leave it as it is, but you can surely make your proposals on the related project talk page, and we all will discuss them. Ciao. --Angelo 00:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Header colour

The light blue chosen seems arbitrary and non-neutral. I propose a change to light grey. ed g2s • talk 14:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree per my comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#my_humble_opinion /AB-me (chit-chat) 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm against. Such change has to be discussed before any edits. You just do not give your opinion and change. This is supposed to be discussed on WikiProject Football talk page. Lesfer 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The choice of the colour in the first place was arbitrarily chosen for aesthetic value. That no one objected to it, does not make it right. I made it grey as this is the default background colour for table headings (class="wikitable"), and any other choice of colour needs to be discussed before implemented. ed g2s • talk 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone have a reason, other than personal preference, why we should use blue over grey? ed g2s • talk 22:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal preference is a good reason. As well as you prefer grey, someone else could prefer blue. I don't care about that (it's the same for me), but I'd like to see a clear consensus about your proposal. I think you should consider to move this discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --Angelo 14:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really prefer grey. If I was designing this for my own site, I would use blue. But using such a bright colour for no apparent reason looks out of place with a skin that uses grey, grey and grey. ed g2s • talk 15:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I created the header in blue - and it was arbitrary. I originally thought of having the header colour varying with the team colours. Light blue was used because it was the colour of the team I first tried it with. The consensus, which on reflection I agree with, was that changing colour for each club was a bad idea. Blue is used merely because it was used first. I have no strong opinion about what colour should be used in future. Oldelpaso 18:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics and usability should be the only reasons to choose a colour scheme here. Talk of bias due to colourful flourishes isn't valid in my opinion. Witness FIFA's website; two shades of blue, yellows, oranges, a little red, white, black and grey. Does this imply that FIFA holds favour over clubs that sport these colours to the detriment of, say, a team that plays in green? Now, if we look at Wikipedia as a whole, blue is used as a highlight colour for links. The visual cues of the site scream "look at the stuff in blue!" Why shouldn't we leverage that colour reference to make articles easier for readers to access? To that end, I think there is great merit in standardising the highlight colour for all football related templates, just not to grey. ⁂veila# 04:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Blue is the colour for links, but grey is the colour for table headings:

Table heading	Table data

FIFA uses a consistent blue-white-orange colour scheme. Wikipedia does not use blue bars for any elements, which is why they look out of place, the headline for the current squad is hardly something we want to "scream "look at the stuff in blue!"". ed g2s • talk 14:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The squad list might be coded as a table but it's not a table per se, we shouldn't be bound by the style sheet in this instance. Yes, FIFA does use a consistent colour scheme, that doesn't imply that they're consistently biased. Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that a team that plays in red shouldn't have blue on their page so let's all have grey. It's simply untrue to suggest that there is a truly neutral colour scheme that can avoid this situation.

We absolutely do want to scream look at the current squad. It's one of the most important pieces of information in a club article. It defines the here and now of a club. Your noting of the heading being the focal point over the data is specious quite frankly; the role of the heading is to attract initial attention and lead the user into the data proper. It's exactly the right place to highlight. As for the idea that blue bars look out of place on Wikipedia, I think that blue and grey are very comfortable partners on a page and present a less washed–out look than grey–grey. ⁂veila# 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that the light blue colour has been used over so many places in Wikipedia too great effect that it has, in effect, become a semi-official colour for table headers. See for instance Template:Asia and the likes, as well as the many templates used on Robert Peel. There is, in my opinion, much to be said about adopting this as well in the football squad player template's table header. --Pkchan 16:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reopened debate

The blue is awful, it makes the template look tacky, especially when the team whos article it is a part of doesn't wear blue. It would be better light grey or just plain. I'm changing it to F7F3F7 shade of grey. - Deathrocker 12:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit claims consensus from the above, yet there appears to be a variety of opinions from the original debate from February 2006. However, as the colour remained that way for nearly ten months before you changed it, I think that shows an implicit consensus for keeping it blue. Thus, I have reverted your edit, pending further discussion. Before making another change I suggest you reopen the debate properly and make a case for change, and not rely on the mishmash of opinions expressed in February. Qwghlm 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hard coded background colours break skins and should be avoided when unnecessary. As there is no overwhelming support for the header background, and no particular reason to have one, I propose to use either a skin-defined background (as in wikitables) or a horizontal rule for separation. ed g2s • talk 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the hard coded colours break skins, I checked a few pages with the different skins and saw nothing weird. Either way, I'd rather not see a transparent header background if we necessarily need to change it. Since the squad table itself has no cell borders, I believe at least the header needs to be clearly marked as such. If not the nice light blue, how about the standard wikitable header colour? – Elisson • T • C • 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of no colour settings at all. If you're going to have colours, please make the shades as pale as possible. - fchd 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change this, the blue header seems fine.Dave101→talk→contributions • 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of keeping the header as it is, with light blue as the colour. In any case, I'd rather by far a solution featuring a colour choice different than light blue to a fully transparent header. --Angelo 18:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily the default skins, but one may want to use a custom skin with blue text. Colour definitions should be left, as far as possible, to the css file for each skin. This blue border "breaks" the "monobook" skin for a start, as it is a skin which exclusively uses shades of grey for content elements. Seeing as a stylesheet element does not yet exists for this type of table, I suggest using no background, and a horizontal rule to separate the header. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Has anyone noticed that all of the mini-flags on all Football-related pages are differently sized? Can someone upload new flags/correct the old ones so that they're standardized to the same size? I think the original svg's should be 800 by 533.. --Palffy 05:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

On a similar theme, would it be possible to have flags with large white portions (I've got the England flag in mind) to be bordered, like the Japanese flag? CharlieT 13:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the England flag has been changed. Good stuff, thanks! CharlieT 11:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible for other flags, for instane the Northern Ireland & Wales ones, to have the same done? CharlieT 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Done, CharlieT. --Palffy 02:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Player/coach?

Is there a way to represent "player/coach" (or is that just too much detail)? --Concrete Cowboy 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You could use the "other" field. Just put in other=Player/coach at the end and it should come up in parentheses at the end of the player's entry. PeeJay 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying this template into other languages

I'm trying to copy this template into Danish, but the end result is always bad. Is there an easy way I can copy this template into Danish? If not, could someone please list what templates need to be copied for this to work? AEJ 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to copy {{flagicon}} and {{Football squad player}} as well. The former may be rather complicated, so you may consider removing it on the Danish version template as well. See what I've copied at the Danish page. --Pkchan 14:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Column order

{{editprotected|Would it be possible to put the position column before the nationality column? Personally, I feel it would look better if a player had their national flag next to their name rather than their position, and their position next to their squad number. Just a personal preference, but it would be nice to see what other people think too. PeeJay 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)}}

There should be discussion and consensus before such a change is made. I suggest talking about it on the specific WikiProject. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Indef-protection?

Why is it indefinetly protected so only admins can edit it (for seemingly no reason), Wikipedia isn't an experiment in fascism. - The Daddy 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a high-risk template, being used on thousands of pages. If yo wish to change something, start a discussion. – Elisson • T • C • 08:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copying this template into other languages again

Hi all,

I tried to copy the template to Hungarian Wikipedia, but it falls apart when I try to use it. I copied all parts (Fs start, Fs end, Fs mid, Football squad player) and we have the flagicon one too, still the result looks like this: hu:User vita:Alensha#Próba. Any help would be appreciated. – Alensha ^talk 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Try it now. You forgot to close the <noinclude> tag in the implementation of "Fs start" and "Fs end". --Angelo 18:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, it works now!!! – Alensha ^talk 20:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Player positions abbreviation?

After putting the wrong letter in whilst editing, I noticed that things such as 'MC' and 'ML' link to 'Midfielder' and 'DC' and 'DL' to 'Defender' (although 'DR' doesn't). Is this a deliberate decision? As it's not mentioned in the parameters above. My personal preference is to include the chance to be more accurate with players' positions than simple 'midfielder', although if you can't signify someone's a right-back then it's kinda pointless. CharlieT 00:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The only expected links are GK, DF, MF and FW. Any other link was not provided by the original creator, i.e., me. And I would not agree with any of them. --Angelo 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Flagcruft

The use of flags in this template seems to go against WP:FLAG. They're extremely distracting, and pointless, in articles such as Newcastle United Jets FC. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of flags from football club articles

Discussion underway here. If accepted, the proposal would result in flags being removed from the football squad template. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Add hCard microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please add the hCard microformat by changing:

</noinclude>
|-
| style="text-align: right;" | {{{no|}}}
| style="text-align: center;" | {{#if:{{{nat|}}}|{{flagicon|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}}}}
| style="text-align: center;" | {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|MF|[[Midfielder|MF]]| {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|DF|[[Defender (football)|DF]]| {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|FW|[[Striker|FW]]| {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|GK|[[Goalkeeper|GK]]| }} }} }} }}
|{{{name}}} {{#if:{{{other| }}}|''({{{other}}})''}}<noinclude>

to@

</noinclude>
|- class="vcard agent"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{{no|}}}
| style="text-align: center;" | {{#if:{{{nat|}}}|{{flagicon|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}}}}
| style="text-align: center;" | {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|MF|[[Midfielder|MF]]| {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|DF|[[Defender (football)|DF]]| {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|FW|[[Striker|FW]]| {{#ifeq:{{{pos|}}}|GK|[[Goalkeeper|GK]]| }} }} }} }}
|<span class="fn">{{{name}}}</span> {{#if:{{{other| }}}|''({{{other}}})''}}<noinclude>

and add {{documentation}}. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to flag template?

This template seems to run counter to the guidance in MOS:ICON. The flag used here is only the flag itself and does not include the associated country's name. What is everyone's though on using {{flag}} instead of {{flagicon}}? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 11:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am absolutely against it. Very bad idea, what about footballers from the "Democratic Republic of the Congo"? This issue was discussed plenty of times, and there is a clear consensus to keep things as they are. --Angelo (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering most of the entries use the FIFA country code, it would be displayed as COD, which is slightly more informative than . The problem is that the flags by themselves are basically pointless, especially if the flag used is similar to that of another country, the ole //// problem. Alternatively, template {{fb}} could be used with the name option so the link would be to the article for the country's national team. As an example {{fb|COD|name=COD}} would display as COD. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New template: {{cc3}}

I guess this can be used here. –Howard the Duck 05:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely, seeing a South African footballer being listed as "(RSA) Player Name" seems quite pointless to me, average readers hardly know RSA actually means South Africa, flags are definitely more recognizable in that case. --Angelo (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth column

Can somebody add a date of birth column? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Change as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Just_to_be_clear

{{editprotect}} Copy code from User:Gnevin/sandbox5 Gnevin (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin). To be clear, what does the code in that sandbox do? It's difficult to tell. WFCforLife (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please could you clarify, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It add a field called ref beside the flag as per the discussion, this change needs to be carried out at the same time as the change to Template:Football squad start which add a note about the flag field and makes some spacing changes Gnevin (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, have wrong code in the sandbox. That was a rejected idea to hide the flag when ref wasn't there. I've fixed this now to just add a ref tag beside the flag Gnevin (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Change to Template:Football squad player/sandbox to fix issue caused by changed fs start Gnevin (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind pointless user can just add a ref Gnevin (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Please revert this change as it relied on a change to fs start which has been removed Gnevin (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)  Done changed to same as Template:Football squad player/sandbox  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Country names

I think that the name of the country need to be placed next to the flag of the players' nationalities, i.e. use the {{flag}} template instead of {{flagicon}}. Using just the flag without the name of the country assumes the reader has the knowledge and the ability to recognise the flag, which may not necessarily be the case, and even if a reader does know their flags they can be difficult to distinguish at the size they are displayed here. The various blue ensigns in use around the world can cause particular difficulty, not to mention pairs of countries like Indonesia/Monaco which have identical flags, or the various combinations of the pan-african colours.

There needs to be some sort of clever wizardry to make sure that the output is Central African Republic, rather than CAF, when the three-letter ISO code has been used with the 'nat=' parameter instead of the full country name. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed adress an abuse of WP:FLAG perpetuated in this template, but there are many other issues about the inclusion of flags that are not well resolved at present, like why are they considered relevant at all, especially for the vast majority of players who are nowhere near consideration for a national team; the false impression given about players who have played under what is not much more than a flag of convenience; presentation of incomplete information about players of multiple nationality or otherwise eligible for more than one team; and lack of verification. I would suggest holding fire until some or all of those have been resolved. Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@Gasheadsteve: No clever wizardry required; use {{flagcountry|CAF}} to get Central African Republic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Per above and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names, {{editprotect}}

For {{fs player}}, change

| style="text-align: right;" |{{flagicon|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}}

to

| style="text-align: left;" |{{#if: {{{icononly|}}} | {{#ifeq: {{{icononly|}}} | yes | {{flagicon|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}} | {{flagcountry|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}} }} | {{flagcountry|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}}} }}

(Per discussion below) also change for {{fs start}}

!width=1%|No.

!width=1%|

!width=1%|Position

to

!width=1%|No.

!width=22%|Nationality

!width=1%|Position

This incoporates a new parameter—"icononly". If "icononly" is empty (default) or not "yes", the country name will be shown. To show only the flag icon, simply add the parameter "icononly=yes". The default case complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Accompany flags with country names, and having lists with names besides all the flags is still compliant with the guidelines. Any other sort of scheme as default goes against MOSFLAG. Jappalang (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) :I request that this is declined until discussion has taken place at WT:FOOTY. Regards, --WFC (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood what is being requested. Could you expand on what this would do? --WFC (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. MOS is clear on one thing; when you first use a flag, put the name next to it.
2. This change will make it such that the use of {{fs player}} will have the country name displayed next to the flag on default.
3. To disable the name (for subsequent repetition of the flag), just use "icononly=yes".

The change will make display of a country name next to the flag a default. A new parameter is added to allow users to turn off the display of a country name next to the flag. The flags are always there in either case. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against following MOS:ICON in this regard. It's long overdue. But I think mandating a key would be a better solution. Otherwise all we are doing is taking an aspect of football squad lists that has consensus but is controversial (a player's nationality), and emphasising it further. By mandating a key (perhaps even encoding one into {{Fs start}} or {{Fs end}}) we could communicate the information without it dominating the table itself. Regards--WFC (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain putting the name is further emphasis when the graphic draws attention to itself like a candle in the dark (somewhat like "Ooo, a pretty flag... not sure which country it is? There is no name... do I click it to find out? Here goes.") A key (legend) is indeed an alternative, but it does not need to be implemented in the templates (it can be implemented as a separate table before the other lists and such). No article, however, has taken the initiative to (or perhaps is prohibited from) do so. Jappalang (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to removing flags altogether, it's been tried, failed, and I doubt the outcome of any future attempt would be any different. is against the MoS, I accept that. But England is more prominent. Similarly, the large spaces left by only expanding a country on first use would also be more prominent than a uniform width.

In my defence, I did try to take the initiative with Watford (and another article, can't remember where but it will be in my contribution history). Neither stood the test of time. --WFC (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about keeping a format very similar to the current style; having columns "Number", "Nationality", "Position", "Player", "Notes". Instead of a flag for nationality, have a flag and the full country name. And to amend for the obvious extended width this would create, have the list run in just one column, rather than the two it currently uses. 91.106.96.171 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a column is needed. Beyond a slight preference for a key on whitespace grounds (USA vs Democratic Republic of Congo) I'd be happy with either solution. If the second method were used, a bot would need to remove {{Football squad mid}} from every article before the change were implemented. --WFC (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I hear ye, WFCforLife; my point is what you experienced: you were "prohibited from" doing so. You had implemented your key on 21 December 2009, but was later undone a month later by a User:JoeA2580, who removed the key without even an edit summary.[1] There is a faction that insists on having "pretty" layouts without care for others with visual disabilities (colour-blindness or such) or unfamiliarity with flags. Regardless, to make it clear, this proposal has naught to do with removal of flags.

User:91.106.96.171, this proposal does what you ask, it will place a country name next to the flag (by default). So can I take it that you and WFCforLife are agreeable to my suggested change to this template? Jappalang (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If accompanied by an edit to {{Football squad start}} to add a nationality column, I'm happy with that. We can always consider the possibility of changing to a key later, if desired. Thanks for your patience. --WFC-- 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No problems. The Nationality column has always been there; it just does not have a column title. If this change goes through, I will proceed to {{fs start}} to ask for the title to be implemented and the column's width extended from 1% to at least 22%. Jappalang (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats cool. Might be worth asking the admin to do them simultaneously though. A width of 1% might render strangely combined with expanded country names. --WFC-- 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put up the suggestion above. I also changed the suggested "icon" parameter to "icononly" to make it less confusing to users. Let us see if an admin is willing to do this. Jappalang (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice work! --WFC-- 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks hideously complicated, but that's just me. Has this been tested to ensure that it works? If so, could you copy the code to the template's sandbox so I can just copy and paste it, then stick the template back up. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This will get even more complicated, as an edit will also need to be made to {{fs mid}}, unless a bot is going to mass-remove it. I've done some work, and the current state of play can be seen here. The player name field might prove to be a bit narrow (particularly for Eastern Europe), and we need to figure out a way to get Northern Ireland to render properly without compromising any further on player names. Once that conundrum is sorted I'll let you know. --WFC-- 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, we've cracked it

{{editprotected}}

I'm filing this request on one page for the conveniece of the admin, but for procedural reasons will place {{editprotected}} on the other pages. I recommend making the edits in the order I have specified. In particular, it is vital that {{Football squad player}} is edited last.

These changes achieve two major things:

1. Ensuring that the template can comply with MOS:FLAG, by displaying the country name alongside the flag by default.

2. If country names have been spelt out in a previous table or a key, it is possible for the user to display flag icons only by using the new |icononly parameter.

Please:

1. Replace the code in {{Football squad start}} with the code from {{Football squad start/sandbox}}
2. Replace the code from {{Football squad mid}} with the code from {{Football squad mid/sandbox}}
3. Replace the code from {{Football squad player}} with the code from {{Football squad player/sandbox}}

The combined effect of these changes can be seen at Template:Football squad player/testcases

Please credit User:Jappalang in the edit summary, as he has done much of the work. He indicated his approval for me to proceed with this request here. I now consider myself to have a very good understanding of the source code, so feel free to contact me with any queries. I also have this page watchlisted if you'd prefer to keep the discussion in one place. Regards, --WFC-- 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wish I had been aware that this conversation was going on, but I guess that's my fault for having not put it on my watchlist after I had contributed in the early discussion.

I'd support it, but I would suspect mass revolt when it is rolled out: large amounts of white space won't go down well. Many team articles still list players on loan as an "other" section in fs mid: what would happen to such notes, and will it make very wide columns even more common?

My other reservation is that it might be seen to confirm the current header. FIFA eligibility rules do not allocate one nationality to every player in the workd, they simply indicate what will, and therefore what will not, be permitted if a national association wishes to name a player to its team. If Brazil were to decide that their World Cup campiagn would have gone better had they had a short-sighted overweight 47 year old with experience of playing at right back in the heights of inter-seminary football tournaments among their squad, FIFA would have told Dunga that I was not available to them, but FIFA has no opinion as to whether I am English, Irish or Northern Irish, nor does it have eligibiilty rules that would create any default position or order of preference between my potential eligibilities. The current header is factually wrong in that regard. Kevin McE (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (struck: WFC has introduced this under another heading below)

I haven't changed the header. I request that you move that comment to another section so as not to complicate the matter. --WFC-- 09:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind. I've moved the sandboxes and testcases to their proper places. I've also made a couple of other tweaks as well. Can you check if all is in order and I will make the changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't figure out what the extra |} you removed was for, but I've tested at length and everything seems fine. We look good to go. --WFC-- 20:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 all done. Let me know if they are any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've checked all the featured articles (and my own club), and haven't come across any problems. Aston Villa F.C. and Watford F.C. have images alongside them, but they still render well at 800x600. Aesthetically the template doesn't look fantastic for clubs without a squad numbering system, but that was already the case, and can be fixed with a new opt-in parameter if desired. I'll update the template's documentation accordingly. I'm having problems with wikipedia at the moment, but as soon as I get the opportunity I'll update the documentation. Regards, --WFC-- 23:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks appalling

I just found out about this entire discussion today. It would have been nice if the proposed changes to the template were announced at WP:FOOTY prior to it going live, but that's a different matter. I appreciate that changing the template was done so that the flag icons comply with WP:MOSFLAG, but adding entire country name to the table makes the layout look utterly horrific. There has to be a better way. Wouldn't simply using the recognized FIFA Trigramme - ENG instead of England, USA instead of United States, COD instead of Democratic Republic of the Congo - make more sense? That way you can control column widths so they don't split across multiple lines and you're ensuring the spirit of MOSFLAG is retained without it looking like someone threw up on the screen. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't updated the documentation yet, but it's possible to opt out of this change by using |icononly=yes in each {{Football squad player}} template. You would still have to find a way of complying with MOS:FLAG though (possibly your own key, such as the one that once existed in Watford, mentioned above). Regards, --WFC-- 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Each football squad player template?!?!? I maintain pages on over 200 US minor league teams, with over 5,000 players in the squad lists. Asking editors to do that is totally unrealistic. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this before. This change was the most convenient way of achieving MoS compliance, given that over 5,000 articles use this template.

The decision to use |icononly is made on the grounds that you are either going to knowingly ignore the manual of style, or that you'll comply with it in another way (for instance a key). Assuming the latter, you would still need to manually add a key in order to comply with it, which would involve a lot more work than copy-pasting "|icononly=yes" 25 times. Unless an article has Congolese players (that would be what, 5 or so US ones?) I really don't see why anyone would want to go to that trouble for the sake of avoiding a few characters' worth of whitespace. I'm not saying this is the finished product, but it was the most efficient solution to the problem of MoS compliance. I'm completely open-minded about superior alternatives. --WFC-- 01:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As for not mentioning this at WP:FOOTY, the "decision making process" has grown increasingly... how shall I put it diplomatically... shite in recent months, to the extent that I know of at least one user who has retired over the matter, and another that no longer has anything to do with the wikiproject. In any case, the meat of this change can easily be opted out of, and I'll be happy to solve (or provide code to solve) any substantive problems. --WFC-- 23:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think the matter could be resolved by displaying the country name as a three-letter FIFA trigramme rather than the entire country name. I'm not saying to remove the name entirely, because I understand that is a violation of WP:MOSFLAG; just display it as the widely-recognized 3-letter code, and shrink the nationality column so that the integrity of the squad template isn't compromised by forced row-splits. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That idea has been discussed at WP:FOOTY before, and always rejected. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a case in point. I sure as hell wouldn't know what "COD" means unless I was told.

In any case, the icononly parameter ensures that users who disagree with this change are not forced to put up with it. If preferred, articles can use the |icononly parameter, and come up with their own key. However, now that it is possible to use this template and comply with the manual of style, it's a reasonable expectation that articles meet it one way or another. --WFC-- 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WFCForLife speaks true. I initiated the change because when the non-compliance with MOS ("country names on first flag use") is pointed out, most editors are at a loss on how to comply with the MOS or defend the non-compliance. WP:FOOTY and certain partisans enforce the use of the Football squad templates on the football articles; however, most editors are unfamiliar with template markups, and any discussion about MOSFLAG somehow gets derailed into "remove the flags.... hell no!" rants irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is all easily solved with the above change. Whatever it is, the project is supposed to present information accessible to all and flags-only displays can confuse those with lesser knowledge of flags (we are not expected to be vexillologists) or have issues with visual abilities (e.g. color blindness); even the flags of Northern Ireland and England are too close in appearance to confuse. Initials are also discouraged for the same reasons (unfamiliarity with the ISO country codes). "Prettiness" has less place than clarity and accessibility. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the documentation to explain the change, and also to more widely publicise the fact that it is possible to hide the note. Please can an admin action the following request:

{{editprotected}} Please:

1. Replace the code in {{Football squad start}} with the code from {{Football squad start/sandbox}}
2. Replace the code from {{Football squad mid}} with the code from {{Football squad mid/sandbox}}
3. Replace the code from {{Football squad player}} with the code from {{Football squad player/sandbox}}

The combined effect of these changes can be seen at Template:Football squad player/testcases.

Changes:

• To shorten the header from "nationality" to "nation". Discussion needs to be had on the longer-term heading, but nationality is intolerably long if the |icononly parameter is used.
• If icononly is used, the nationality parameter is centered, to reduce the increased whitespace between the flag and a player's position.
• If icononly is not used, the nationality parameter remains left aligned, because the manual of style correctly stipulates that where flags are used in a table, they should all line up. Unless every player is from the same country, this cannot be guaranteed with centre alignment

Regards, --WFC-- 00:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen done on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to continue contributing here if you people think shit like this improves anything. I don't even know what to say. It's unbelievable. Eightball (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Care to expand on that? --WFC-- 06:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what he's trying to say is "this change to the Fs template makes every single page about every single soccer team across all of Wikipedia look like complete and utter crap, and we should go against WP:MOSFLAG in this instance because sticking to the letter of the guideline renders squad templates almost entirely unreadable". This is a prime example of an instance where WP:IGNORE applies, for the good of the WP:FOOTY wikiproject as a whole. Does that about cover it? --JonBroxton (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know from experience that you are a reasonable person. Please consider rephrasing the above (and feel free to delete this paragraph if you do). You have legitimate points, but the forcefulness of that post only serves to strengthen the position of those who disagree with you. --WFC-- 07:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a reasonable person, but I'm not going to rephrase anything because I feel very, very strongly about this and my words were very carefully chosen to properly capture my feelings about this. I honestly think that this is one of the most misguided blanket changes I have seen here in years. Firstly, the fact that you intentionally kept this from the wider WP:FOOTY community and discussed it between yourself, Jappalang and a couple of others here and on your talk pages indicates to me that you were trying do to this "on the sly" without the participation of the wider wikiproject for whom you seem to have quite a bit of distain. I, and many of the others who would have wanted to contribute to this discussion had we known about it, work VERY hard on producing pages here which are accurate, informative, useful, aesthetically pleasing, and conform as best they can to the spirit of the Wiki guidelines. The latter os the most important thing; WP:MOSFLAG is a GUIDELINE, not a CARVED IN STONE RULE, and as such can be manipulated to best suit the needs of an article when said article is genuinely attempting to be accurate, informative, useful, and aesthetically pleasing. This is one of those occasions. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the FS template as it stood; certainly nothing that required such a drastic change to its layout. The bottom line is this: I for one don't want all the pages I maintain looking like crap as a result of a discussion in which I was not involved, and I'm sure a LOT of editors will agree with me. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what Eightball is trying to say is that there is really no need for a nationality header when you can simply hover above the flag which reveals the players nationality. Moreover, inclusion of the "Nationality" header has made the template look awkard and unorganized, in where nations with long names like "Azerbaijan" overshadow and skew the alligement of smaller nations such as "Iran". Overall, this edit seems like a hurried and unorthodox attempt to solve a problem which never existed. As such, i beleive more creative ideas, such as hyperlinking the flags to the country's wikipedia page, seem like simpler ideas to solve the nationality problem, if there ever were one.. Kasperone (talk) -- 12:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the accusation that this was hurried, discussion started four months ago, work started several days ago, and complaints started today. That said, I cocked up with the "Nationality" header. That looks bad in several circumstances, most notably in conjunction with "|icononly". This second set of changes will address that.

Even if you remain opposed to the initial change, it is imperative that the second set of edits to go through. They fix the above problem, and undeniably improve on what is currently in place, even if you think what was in place was better. I recommend that the admin dealing with this does so while explicitly expressing no prejudice to whether or not the previous changes should remain. Given that the first set of edits happened, this latest request is necessary maintenance, and that maintenance is entirely separate from the discussion on whether we should keep these changes. --WFC-- 07:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with Kasperone, JonBroxton and Eightball. The new design is horrible to look at and absolutely nothing is gained by speling out the entire name of the country. And if you really want to be a bureaucratic pain in the ass about it, WP:MOSFLAG states that "the name of a flag's country should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon", meaning the current layout is also against its rules for any club which has more than one player from the same country (e.g. around 100 percent of them). Well done. The four months which have allegedly been spent discussing this must have been very fruitful. Timbouctou (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with the notion that a second set of changes will fix everything. You're working under the assumption that the Fs template needed "fixing" in the first place, which I don't think it did. Any fix you make will simply make it a little less awful than it is now, not actually make it better. For the benefit of the project you should restore the original Fs template and take the discussion on whether it needs changing to WP:FOOTY, where veteran editors and others who care about soccer articles on Wikipedia can actually have a chance to air their views on the matter. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I've disabled my edit request, meaning that the "Nationality" header in its entirety will stay for a longer period of time than it otherwise would have. Congratulations.

All I did was enhance Jappalang's work,, make the edit request, and then promptly make a second edit request when I realised that there were teething problems. Criticise the process by all means. But if the remark that I deliberately acted in bad faith isn't retracted, I will take the matter further. --WF C-- 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No-one is saying you acted in bad faith (I'm not even sure what that means). I'm saying that a decision was made, and that decision was apparently made after intentionally excluding the majority of the members of WP:FOOTY from the discussion process, as you yourself insinuated above. I'm absolutely sure you all absolutely had the right intentions (WP:GOODFAITH) and thought the changes were making the template better. My opinion is that the template was made immeasurably worse by the change; that's not a statement that you "acted in bad faith" - it's a statement that IMHO the good faith change was misguided. And so we discuss it further and hopefully we can all come to a mutually acceptable way forward. --JonBroxton (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

I've reverted the changes until this issue has been discussed by a wider group from WP:FOOTY. I think it's clear that there are several issues with this, not least the fact that it severely disturbs the layout of player squads. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has previously expressed opinions on the matter, I suggest that you re-revert (or implement the interim solutions I proposed), until an uninvolved administrator has had a look. Regards, --WFC-- 09:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused - I have not commented on this issue, and was only drawn here after seeing several comments expressing surprise about a decision made away from most members of WP:FOOTY, and which is not liked by most people commenting there (currently two in favour and six against). If you are referring to the 2008 discussion that I participated in, that was regarding the removal of flags from the template, rather than the issue of adding country names alongside. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the admin who made the changes to this template. At the time consensus appeared to support the changes. However it is now clear that this change is controversial and needs further discussion to find the best way forward. WFC: thanks for your work with this template; please do not lose heart that this has met with opposition but continue to discuss the issue in a constructive way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Changes to Football squad templates to comply with WP:MOSFLAG

The Manual of Style (MOS) specifically instructs that on the first time a flag icon is used, we should name the country (WP:MOSFLAG#Accompany flags with country names). The reasons are for clarity and accessibility. The Football squad templates ({{fs start}}, {{fs player}}, {{fs mid}}, and {{fs end}}) are used in association football (soccer, hereby referred to as football) articles. The project enforces the use of the templates; no article is to be without it. The templates do not allow the naming of flags. A proposal was tabled to modify the templates to name the flags on default with an option to disable the name.[2] It was implemented two days later after discussions and tests.[3] Three WP:FOOTY members arrived to protest after implementation, leading to a reversion of the change[4]. This RFC is to ask for community opinions on whether the initial change to the templates (naming the flags on first use) should be reinstalled or for any alternative methods to ensure compliance with MOS. Jappalang (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To see the proposed version (that was reverted), see Template:Football squad player/testcases.

Starting the motion, I have read the discussion above and found the reasons for opposition lacking.

Against the guidelines? It is not, read Accompany flags with country names again.

The guideline stated "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name."

It does not state in any way that you can name only the first use and not subsequent ones ("need not" is not the same as "must not" or "should not"). The current (reverted to) scheme (icons only) violates the MOS (it did not name the first use), whereas the proposed scheme is in compliance, coming with an option to render subsequent uses of the flags nameless.

We can have the country name beside every flag icon, but we should not have flag icons in an article without naming them at least once (on each first use).

Why text is necessary:

• Not everyone is well versed with flags, and some of us are impaired in our vision, notably color-blindness. These lead to confusions when confronted with the issues below.
• Some "nations" use very similar flags, e.g. Monaco and Indonesia (, Vietnam and Morocco ().
• The flags of Ivory Coast, Ireland, and Italy use the same design with similar colors and can confuse those with lesser knowledgable of flags or under certain lighting conditions ().
• When reduced to icon size, thus reducing details to little dots and smudges, one flag can be easily mistaken for another similar one: e.g. flag of Northern Ireland to the flag of England (), New Zealand to St. Helena to the Virgin Islands (), Singapore to Indonesia (, Soviet Union to China (), Niger to India), Jordan to Palestine (). Readers should not be expected to pause and study intently the flags to identify them.

Tooltip-like implementation

A reader who mistakes a flag of one body for another for the above reasons would not bother to hover over the flag (very few would have a reading habit of moving their cursor over every word/object they read if ever). Full names in text clearly identifies the flags to their nations without confusion.

Conclusion

By making readers mistake one flag for another (and consequently one player's nationality or representation), the project is certainly causing them a disservice. The displays have become inaccurate and useless in their purpose.

From what I see so far, advocating for icons boils down to an appeal for aesthetics at the cost of accuracy and usefulness. I do not believe we should allow the call of "Looks pretty. Flags only please." to trump "Present information with greater clarity to everyone. Identify the flags." when it comes to building an encyclopaedia. The assumption of bad faith above rankles; when one brings a change to the table, it is directly at the talk page of the article concerned first. I had not expected a valued template to be not even watched at all by the project that is heavily enforcing its use on involved articles. This involves the MOS and as such, the RFC is started to gather wider community opinion instead of a single Wikiproject. Jappalang (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• There was opposition to the first attempt to implement this, as the unwieldy "Nationality" header distorted the table for any club without Bosnian, Congolese or Northern Irish players. I quickly realised the problem, and quickly moved to deal with it. I deliberately made the requests at a time when European editors were least likely to be effected, on the grounds that many American editors edit between 0:00 and 4:00 UTC, and therefore that any teething problems could be swiftly remedied. Sadly, this did not happen. Opposition was needlessly exacerbated by the fact that while I was trying to correct it, our crats and admins were busy discussing how underworked they are. In six hours nobody had bothered to look at it, and as a result I was public enemy number one. As far as I'm concerned, editors there who claim to be committed to the smooth running of the project cocked up and hung me out to dry yesterday, and should be admonished for that. --WFC-- 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• While I've been here a relatively short amount of time, discussion on the rights and wrongs of whether we should have flags, and if so, whether they should be expanded, has been going on for years at WT:FOOTY. The consensus has always been that we must represent nationality somehow. Apart from those whose attitude is "to hell with flag policy", there was also broad acknowledgement that ideally we needed to try to address the problem of non-MoS compliance. Therefore, that is exactly what we have tried to do here. There was no need to consult WP:FOOTY again; the correct process was to find a solution, see if it worked, and then discuss the way forward if for some reason it didn't. As an aside, the only legitimate aesthetic complaint about this template is its implementation. On the concept of expanding on country names there is simply no case to answer. --WFC-- 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Despite the level of hostility I've received over the matter, I have continued to work on trying to iron out the problems, and the current state of affairs can be seen here. --WFC-- 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created a simple wikitable that might work just as well as a squad list. You can find it here. If anyone has any ideas for other columns that could be added or any way that the table could be streamlined, do let me know! – PeeJay 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay, can you do a version of that where we have ENG instead of England, and GK instead Goalkeeper etc., just to see what it looks like? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How's this? – PeeJay 23:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly think the most sensible way around this is what I mentioned before; to use the internationally recognized FIFA trigramme in place of the country name. That way, you keep the flag image that so many people want, you have an abbreviated country name next to the flag to maintain compliance with WP:MOSFLAG, and you have fixed column widths that don't cause any of the brain-melting row misalignments that the original changes gave us. Adding three capital letters to a row of text will not cause any undue problems, and will fix all the MOS issues that seem to be driving this whole discussion. (Although, again, I feel compelled to point out that MOSFLAG is a *guideline*, not a *rule*, and as such can be ignored if doing so will be more beneficial to the article(s) in question than following it). --JonBroxton (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

USA is informative enough, and the likes of ENG and WAL would be tolerable. But the problem with that is that there are ambiguous ones such as ISL and NIG, and outright bizzare ones such as COD being used for a practically landlocked nation. --WFC-- 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

True, I always thought that one was a bit fishy ;) I think the obvious ones do outweigh the few that are peculiar though: I mean, ENG, SCO, WAL, USA, FRA, ITA, GER, RUS, JAP, BEL, NED, DEN, SWE, NOR, AUS, CAN... I don't see much potential for confusion there. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's JPN, not JAP. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that using country codes and flags is a straightforward solution that will work for most articles. Most of the affected pages use wiki markup like {{flagicon|XYZ}} now, which would simply change to {{flag|XYZ}}. The end result would eliminate any confusion between IDN and MCO, but not require a significant amount of additional space for this table column, and would obviate the need for an awkward legend table. I do not see why ISL or NIG are ambiguous, because of the generated wikilink to the country article, nor do I see why COD is any more awkward than some more well-known codes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I quite agree. Using country codes seems like a reasonable compromise. – PeeJay 23:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't want to be seen as averse to compromise here. But the issue with triagrammes is that they're no use to someone reading plain text. When you pipe a link, you are usually doing so to get rid of unwanted precision (e.g. Don Cowie (footballer) → Don Cowie). If you print off a page, and on that page there is a flag that you don't recognise with "COD" next to it, are you any the wiser for the triagramme? --WFC-- 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So what happens when I'm looking up a squad list on my iPhone or printed out, and I can't roll over the flags I don't recognise and can't click on the trigrammes which aren't obvious. You show COD to someone in the street. Do you think they would know what country it was? 91.106.116.29 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The vast majority of readers gain nothing from seeing that, whereas the vast majority of readers can read "Democratic Republic of Congo". Knepflerle (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I'm asking this openly because the combination of the last two comments looks extremely bad. Are you a registered user? If so, would you consider using that account? Regards, --WFC-- 23:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not a registered user. I came across this discussion a few days ago via the previous links originally at the Manchester United FAC and then the Football project page. 91.106.116.29 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll briefly repeat the points I made at WT:FOOTY: Stand alone flags are absolutely a bad idea, as the ability to rollover for further information is not always available. I do however believe that FIFA trigrammes are not a bad option. MOSFLAG indicates that a country name should appear, but does not state limits on how the name should be rendered, so an established abbreviation is not explicitly forbidden. In a footballing context the FIFA trigrammes are well established and standard abbreviations, so to my mind would not be in violation of MOSFLAG and should be permissable. AJCham 00:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• To tell you the honest truth, nothing good will come from this discussion. I don't believe for one second that having only flagicons is confusing readers, and I think quite a few people share this same view. Furthermore, I don't believe the motion to change the squad template was as a result of editors reading pages and saying, "wow, these flagicons are really ambiguous." I think someone discovered that the pages conflicted with the Manual of Style and set about try fixing this. The problem is, there's nothing to fix. There's no perfect solution to the problem we have. First off, I'd like to address those who say nationality is not important. They are quite spectacularly in the wrong. They simply do not understand how important nationality is in football, especially in leagues that restrict how many non-native players can be on a team, but also because football is notably a worldwide game. I'd also like to touch on the perceived ambiguity of flags. I don't believe that this is anywhere near as widespread of a problem as some of you think it is. The situations in which you could not easily discover the country an unknown flag represents are shockingly rare, and possibly even nonexistent. At worse you'd need to click on a player's name and view their page. And while trigrammes are a decent compromise, they really only help in situations where flags are quite similar, i.e. Monaco vs Indonesia. In most of these cases, both the team context and player's name should almost always end any confusion. A situation like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the trigramme is COD, including that abbreviation is almost entirely pointless.
  
  And finally, the original edit: full country names. This is simply unacceptable to me. You people get so caught up with adhering to your made up policies that you forget to take into account that aesthetics really do matter, and it is much much nicer to read a well-formatted list than a giant block of text (another problem with Wikipedia: the unwarranted war against tables. but that's for later). I've tried to lay down a well-reasoned argument for keeping the squad list as it currently stands, and while I've done the best I can without wasting my life away on a internet argument, obviously there are points that I've missed. Feel free to address these. However, if you simply reply with something to the extent of "BUT MOSFLAG SAYS," you just don't get it. In a discussion like this one, try to stop blindly quoting wikipolicy and actually support your stance once. And finally, WP:IGNORE. Use it. Eightball (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"In a discussion like this one, try to stop blindly quoting wikipolicy and actually support your stance once." - read Jappalang and AJCham's for a full and correct explanation of why MOSFLAG is used. Knepflerle (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"First off, I'd like to address those who say nationality is not important. They are quite spectacularly in the wrong. They simply do not understand how important nationality is in football, especially in leagues that restrict how many non-native players can be on a team, but also because football is notably a worldwide game. " So please explain why it is relevant to an article on Macclesfield Town whether their reserve left back is English or Welsh? What is the relevance to a player's membership of his squad that, despite having lived in England all his life, he once played for the U18 team of the country that his grandmother was from? Why should Wikipedia take a position on the nationality of a player who has a complex background, especially if he has no real likelihood of ever representing any of the national teams for which he might be eligible? Why should we include a field that invites vast numbers of unsourced claims for personal information? By all means have your opinion on the relevance of nationality in this template, but have enough respect for those who think differently to avoid phrases like "They are quite spectacularly in the wrong". Kevin McE (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those who think nationality is not important ARE in fact spectacularly wrong. There is virtually NO website out there dealing with fooball and football players which DOES NOT list their nationalities, and they are almost always indicated by flags or combinaton of flags and country names. Saying that "Wikipedia is taking position on this" is very misleading. It's not as if we're insisting on a parameter which is otherwise irrelevant in the world of football (as would be the case if we insisted on including the color of each players' eyes or his penis size). On the other hand, wheher a club has players who have been capped at international level IS relevant information for that club's article and excluding it would hardly help any reader. Claming that it should be excluded just because there is a very small number of players who are eligible for more than one national team would be a extreme overreaction. Once again, Wikipedia is NOT "taking position" by reiterating a well known fact which can be referenced and checked against a plethora of secondary sources. Wikipeda IS taking position when an editor says that "he has no real likelihood of ever representing any of the national teams for which he might be eligible". Who do you think you are exactly and why do you think anyone should care about your opinion? Wikipedia is here to present facts, and international careers of professional footballers, as well as ther eligibility fr a particular national team, is a pretty relevant fact in the world of this particular sport. Whoever thinks otherwise knows nothing about football. Period. I know some of you can and will accuse me of not being tolerant, but hey, democracy and tolerance DOES NOT include allowing the decision-making process to be dumbed down like this, and I refuse to "tolerate" such ignorance in the very place whose purpose of existence is to reduce it. Timbouctou (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

" Who do you think you are exactly and why do you think anyone should care about your opinion?" Anyone who asks a question like that in serious discussion loses all right to be taken seriously. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was why should our readers be constrained by anonymous editors' opinions when the purpose of Wiki is to present facts. I, as a reader of articles, couldn't give a toss about any editors opinion whether player X is talentd or not or whether he plays for Wales just because his grandmother hails from Cardiff. The fact that a player had appeared in international football is not something we can present or not depending on our (and who are we if not a group of anonymous amateurs with varying degrees of interest in the topic) understanding whether this piece of information should be omitted or not. I'd be hard pressed to find a website dealing with this topic which DOES NOT list players' nationalities and it seems Wikipedia is the ONLY place on the internet which is so perplexed with the notion of national teams in world football. So yeah, anonymous amateur editors (who more often then not tend to think that being constructive is second to being polite) have no place deciding about this for our readers. As for things to take seriously, I would hardly put idiotic debates about WP:MOS which go on for several months in my top 1,000 Things to Take Seriously list. Hundreds of "discussions" such as these are precisely the reason why people refuse to take Wikipedia seriously. Timbouctou (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with your last two sentences, you otherwise make some very good points.

Strangely we agree on quite a lot. I completely agree with you that nationality is important. That's a long established principle on WP:FOOTY, and one that I am certain will never change. I'm 95% sure that we will never achieve consensus among editors to remove flags altogether. I'm at least the third editor to say this now, but going there again will achieve nothing. I also agree with you that the triagrammes are not helpful, except I'll go further and say that they are Euro-US centric. On that point, we disagree over whether alone is enough, but clearly we do agree that IF there's a problem with the flag alone, COD is not a solution.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether we need the full country names or not. But for the reasons I have outlined above, I believe that there are three feasible outcomes to this discussion:

1. 1. We keep the flags as they always were, on the basis that it's worth ignoring the MoS.

   2. We introduce a change that introduces the full country names, on the basis that it isn't.

   3. We start to encourage the use of a key, because we need to abide by the MoS but altering the table looks rubbish.

If consensus is for the first option, at least this RfC will give football editors something concrete to cite when challenged on the MoS in future. --WFC-- 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of those three options, I think only #1 is viable. #2 would cause a lot of problems, due to the lack of lines between columns possibly making it look like the country name is part of the player's name. Especially long country names would also be a problem. As for #3, I don't think using a key would be a good idea; with multi-national squads these days, the key could end up being as long as the squad list itself. I definitely think using the FIFA trigrammes is the best idea, but out of the three WFC has posited, #1 is the best IMO. – PeeJay 08:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think my opinion on option #1 is clear. That said, I genuinely think that flags alone are more useful than flags plus triagrammes. --WFC-- 09:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 1 is simply not viable. The major reason for this are the information accessibility reasons laid out in detail here, but there is also the minor problem, of interest to some editors, that the people who choose which articles reach FA status may decide that they cannot promote an article which contain tables of information which isn't readily accessible to many users (especially when it could be made universally accessible so easily). I would guess that all editors on WP:FOOTY would hate to see an otherwise excellent article fail FAC just for this rather insignificant aesthetic issue, but as long as the tables stay as they are we're just hoping none of the judges notices and objects. Jappalang noticed and raised the issue atWikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_United_F.C./archive5, so I think we can assume that other reviewers will spot this in future. If we work on a change now, then the FAC judges will have no reason to object and the articles will get the status they deserve.

I'd like to add that we should be making this change for the benefit of the readers who currently can't access the information in these tables, rather than for the reasons of FA criteria, but working towards meeting the criteria normally benefits the reader - and in this particular case it is clear that it will. Knepflerle (talk) significantly redacted and expanded, 12:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything what Eightball said, including his feelings about the futility of this discussion. An earlier decision at WP:FOOTY about lists of notable footballers had already made me semi-retire from the project and I see this as just another continuaton of the longstanding tradition of fixing non-existent problems. Having said that, I might add that I too think trigrammes would be a good compromise, probably in conjuction with a short note explaining what they were embedded in the template with a link to the entire list. If country codes are good enough for FIFA, the sport's top governing body on planet Earth, I don't see why they're not good enough for our articles. As for the statement that they are "Euro-US centric", I don't understand what that means actually. Do trigrammes have ideological inclinations? Are symbols of chemical elements euro-centric too? Should we care even if they were? I think not. If one doesn't know what COD means perhaps it's a good opportunity for one to learn by clicking on those three letters to find out. Also, the current note on nationality should be re-phrased, as "non-FIFA" nationality is a pretty vague concept. The note should simply state that flags represent players' primary national team as defined by FIFA eligibility rules, not their actual citizenship(s). Timbouctou (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trigrammes with an auto-generated key really wouldn't be so bad an option, but the inclusion of the key would have to be mandatory in this case. Knepflerle (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Euro-US centric": nearly all of the European Union ones are useful, as are the US, Canada and Mexico. On the other hand, a reasonable proportion of African, Middle Eastern, Carribean, Asian and Oceanic countries are completely useless. I'm sure it isn't intentional, but it's an issue nonetheless. Given that these countries have fewer players, it's if anything more important to be able to communicate their nationalities, because a high proportion of players from these nations playing overseas will be international footballers. --WFC-- 09:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying trigrammes are not Euro-centric, but readers of the English Wikipedia are as little Johnny from 3rd grade may assume that ENG stands for England but has no clue that CIV sands for Ivory Coast? (I think we can safely assume that Ivorians reading Wikipedia probably are aware of their own country's trigramme, as I'm pretty sure every Serbian knows what SRB means.) The Euro-centricity of Wikipedias readers always was and always will be an issue present in any article about any topic. And that is the very reason why we SHOULD use standardised country codes if such exist. And hey - they actually do exist and are listed here. On first glance, I'd say some 80 percent of those codes consist of first three letters of the country's name in English. Assuming English Wikipedia is intended to be used by speakers of English, most of these codes should be pretty intuitive for a reader to decypher (yeah, somebody may mistake NGA for NIG, but it's not a problem a click on the trigramme won't fix). Even bloody Panini albums sold to children all over the world use FIFA trigrammes for at least the past 30 years. Timbouctou (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why use SRB and hope that 95%, 98% or 99% of readers understand it, when we know 100% of readers can read the word "Serbia"? Even if it is a matter of only a few readers who don't understand it (and for some of the countries, I doubt it will just be a few), what are we gaining by using the trigramme that really justifies not using the word? Knepflerle (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't add anything that User:Jappalang and User:AJCham haven't already said, but something needs to be done.

WP:MOSFLAG may be annoying to some, but it exists for very good reasons - it's there to make sure that all readers have access to the information in articles, including those who don't use the same method of browsing as you are used to. Aesthetics will always be secondary to conveying information: editors prioritising the former over the latter must be strongly reminded that they are editing an encyclopedia, not a series of wallcharts. Encyclopedia articles are there primarily to hold and convey blocks of information, not to be stapled to the wall as interior décor. And making nice wallcharts is an extremely poor excuse for excluding information from article to people who don't know the flags of hundreds of countries, who don't use a mouse, who access the information from a phone, who use text-only browsing, who are colour blind, who don't know their STP from the MNE.

The only acceptable solution in the long run is including the country names; however, this can be done much more elegantly than it was in the first attempt. As Glamorgan_County_Cricket_Club#Current_squad shows, judicious use of column lines can improve matters significantly. We can also consider abbreviating some of the particularly long country names: Dem. Rep. Congo is still more evocative than COD, but takes up half the space. Knepflerle (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've got a great idea. How about using DR Congo instead of conjuring up stuff which is "more evocative" than codes designed to be evocative in the first place? And btw how would you solve Bosnia and Herzegovina? Is "Bos. & Herz." more evocative than "BIH" for the idiot that we perceive our average reader to be? How about Trinidad and Tobago? "Trin. and Tob." or "TRI"? What about United Arab Emirates? Would you rather opt for "Un. Arab. Emr." or UAE? What about Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Do you honestly think someting like "St. Vin. & the Gren." is "more evocative" than simply "VIN"? Timbouctou (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DR Congo would be fine too, and is more likely to be understood than COD. UAE is widely used in English anyway, and yes I belive that Bosnia and St. Vincent are far more recognisable to far more readers than BIH and VIN. I still expect there's a way to format the table so that the full country names can be used, and if not, we can then discuss suitable short forms that are still more recognisable than these trigrammes. Knepflerle (talk) redacted 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole problem is in the ordering of columns. I wouldn't mind having full country names next to flags if they were in the far right column of the squad list, provided that we scrap the Fs Mid parameter for good. That should be more aesthetically pleasing while at the same time conforming to MOS. Why couldn't we have columns ordered so that (from left to right) player numbers come first, followed by position abbreviation, then player name, then flag and country name. I still think FIFA trigrammes would be a better choice even in that kind of layout as I still don't see the point in inventing new shortnames when there are already three-letter codes devised and used exactly for situations like these by the sports top governing body, exactly the same way symbols for SI units are used. As long as there is a note on top of the template saying what those codes mean and why we chose to use them it should be fine. Also, date of birth or at least current age would be a useful addition to the template. Timbouctou (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • So ordered. viewable at Template:Football squad player/testcases, but likely it'll get reverted before you see it, so you'll have to go to a local version at my userspace--ClubOranje^T 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The "Position" column could be narrower, it seems like a waste of space this way. Perhaps naming it "Pos." could fix this. Also, a parameter for shading every other line could be useful to facilitate reading squad lists with large number of players. Also, an "age" column would be a nice addition, preferably inserted between name and nation columns, but I suppose this would have to be debated more and it would require additional input parameters. As for captaincy, icons or abbreviations would be a happier solution (let's say something like "(c)" for captains and "(vc)" for vice-captains). These should also be added to the table key. I think we're moving towards a solution here. Thanks for helping out Oranje.Timbouctou (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Timbouctou's suggested ordering sounds sensible to me and will display better, and Club Oranje's tables which include the country names are a really good start. Both the single and double column variants are already better than what we currently use. I've got a few comments:

• Captaincy should be marked with text rather than icons (same issue as with the flags really; icons aren't always displayed, don't work in text-only etc.). Using (C) and a key would suffice, but I think in the current layout we probably have room to use the full word "Captain" (with link to the relevant article), seeing as we also allow comments like (on loan from Amazing FC) which are much longer. Might it be worth creating a new column for these notes about captaincy and loans, however?
• If we're going to include the age, this should probably be automatically calculated from a template which contains the date of birth for each player otherwise it will become quite a maintenance effort, but that's certainly feasible. It should ideally be toggleable though so that it doesn't display on tables where the players' birthdates haven't been entered.
• As I've mentioned in the section below, the header about "FIFA nationality" should also be changed to a more accurate wording but we should discuss that separately there (but now is a good time to discuss it).
• How do people feel about grouping the players by position then squad number, instead of just squad number?

Thanks and best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think, if we are moving the columns around, we should move the "Position" column to the right of the "Name" column. I don't think we should add any more columns though, as the table is already wide enough as it is and may not display very well on non-PC browsers. I'm not really a fan of an "Age" column anyway, since it's not particularly relevant to the club. Finally, I prefer sorting by squad number rather than sorting by position. It's a more natural sorting method, IMO. – PeeJay 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The re-ordering columns make the template similar to the "National football squad" series templates (no doubt next month's MOSFLAGS target) used on national team and tournament squad pages - and on that basis I'd quite happily accept the addition of age (or DOB/age) as calculating template. On that basis I'd also support a proposal to make the list full width single column, and would leave the position field after the number as an abbreviation so as to not distract from the most important information in any squad list... namely, who is in it!. As for ordering of players, what people may prefer would depend on whether they are looking to see who wears number 17, or who are the clubs midfielders. Personally I think positions are a little arbitrary. Gareth Bale was in my Fantasy side as a defender last year, this year he is a midfielder and gets me less points if he scores, even if he is playing at left back.--ClubOranje^T 00:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading a few of the answers above suggests that this change is only being done to adhere to WP:MOS. I seriously disagree. Using Marseille as an example, do you think most readers will look at the squad and know straight away what nationality all the players are. They have players from Senegal, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Cameroon all with similar looking and similarly coloured flags, add Gabon and Togo whose flags I wouldn't have much conviction of knowing. Why is Wikipedia expecting readers to know all the flags. The squad list at the moment does not show nationality, instead shows what flag might be flying over a ground when a player plays internationally. It's alright if I'm browsing on the web to try get some fairly quick guidance on what nationalities the players are, but I mostly browse on my iPhone and I don't have that ability to check there. The current system appears to be style over substance to me. 91.106.115.244 (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and there will be many, many other readers in the same position. The primary objective is to make sure everybody gets the relevant information easily; after we've achieved that we can tweak it to make it look more aesthetically pleasing - but that is the order of priorities. The MOSFLAG guidance exists to try and prevent this sort of discussion from being rehashed time and time again, by highlighting the problems icon-only data can cause. That it is part of MOS is by-the-by: the issues would still exist and be the same.

I firmly believe that a squad list with delineated columns and country names (with abbreviations for longer names) can be a suitable solution for these articles. Knepflerle (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that the call for WP:IAR is misguided in its thinking. IAR is applied sparingly and exists for cases when such a move will improve the project as an encyclopaedia. Making readers confused over flags for the sake of aesthetics does not make this a better font of information. If we should IAR, it should be to circumvent all this discussion (for the sake of building a consensus) and to re-install the proposed change (or some other form with full names of flags on first call). As has been said, aesthetic improvement can come later, and a pretty table/list of players with national team representations can be made with descriptive names of the nations the flag icons represent. The MOS guideline referenced in this case is not simply a rule on styling, it is a call for us to ensure that we can present legible and clear information to the readers, respecting certain visual difficulties as well. Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that adding the country names would be benficial, since the small icons are not helping to distinguish between similar flags (I just mistook a New Zealand player for an Australian player on one soccer team page I looked at to make up my mind about this). I also understand that having the full name of the countries is just too long to be easily achievable in a smallish template and is not aesthetically pleasing either, so I can live with adding the three-letter-codes, which are clear for most countries and at leat make it obvious that flag + NZL isn't the same as flag + AUS. On an unrelated to this RfC but quite fundamental note, I firmly oppose any use of the "current squad" template at all, since encyclopedias shouldn't be dealing with "current" anythings, and the current squad has no more encyclopedic value than previous years' squads. This is a bad case of recentism and undue weight, and should be removed from all articles instead of being enforced by the project. Squads belong on season articles, tournament articles, but not on general team articles. Fram (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've updated my local testcases with an attempt at colouring every second line and a couple of other tweaks. Unfortunately I can't make it dynamic on non-supplied parameters, so used squad numbers even/odd for colouring. This will of course produce oddities if the numbers are not consecutively odd/even. I also modified Fs mid to put not make a new column, idea being we could 'bot that out if a changeover to new format occurs. Possible look at width factors for columns - I had it 1000%, but have dropped that out in favour of width-to-suit-per-squadlist. I wasn't that keen on full country names myself initially, particularly when they were in the front distracting from the important information, but with them tacked discreetly on the end I don't mind them.--ClubOranje^T 11:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to edit the squad list at Arsenal F.C. because I saw that the Flags didn't have names/codes by them as per MOS:FLAG. I thought I'd look into the template and discovered this mess! So here is my tuppence:

As it stands the squad lists break accessibility guidelines and the very reasonable guidelines concerning odd flags at MOSFLAG. I take the point that putting the entire country name looks a bit undesirable, so I would agree with the proposal that the three-letter-codes be used instead. For the argument that COD looks odd, it is no less odd than some of the obscure flags. For that argument that tried to interpret "only put the name on the first instance", they neglect to consider "every row in a table should stand on it's own" (WP:REPEATLINK. Therefore I would advocate the 3 letter code.—User:MDCollins (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can accept that either or COD might be enough, should the community reach that conclusion. But the argument that is insufficient, yet COD or COD solves everything is inconsistent and utterly unconvincing. --WFC-- 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

I thought long and hard about whether to start a new heading, but I firmly believe that this is a separate strand of discussion. The above discussion focuses on the merits and otherwise of expanding on flags. Although there has been little discussion in the last 24 hours, I believe that it still has some mileage. In contrast this section focuses on whether or not there is any scope for progress (obviously, what might be considered progress depends on one's point of view).

At the moment there is somewhat of a deadlock, which is understandable given the poor execution of the previous attempt. So let's put it this way. If a prototype is designed that attempts to deal with the concerns over accessibility, while at the same time ensuring that there is no compromise on aesthetics, will all editors agree to compare the two on their merits? It is unlikely that anyone is going to change their view on whether full names are necessary, but my question is whether all editors would be willing to reserve judgement until they see what is on the table?

For the record I will not be involved in that template's development. I feel that I have a lot to offer in the template development department, but I recognise that my involvement in this issue must now be an external one. However, I know of at least one editor who has stated a keen interest in working on a possible solution, if the community demonstrates a willingness to consider his work on its merits. Would people be willing to give it the time of day? Even if we keep flags as they are, I firmly believe that the current template is in need of an aesthetic revamp, and that it is worth doing so while there is a lot of attention on it, so that we can get maximum feedback. --WFC-- 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your RfC has been open for only 3 days. That is simply not long enough to form a consensus decision. Not all users spend half the day every day on WP. An important wide reaching change such as this needs to be given an appropriate amount of time for others to consider and contribute - therwise a change will be made and THEN a whole lot of other users will want to re-discuss it.--ClubOranje^T 05:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)}}

We can't implement another change until there has been thorough, medium-term discussion. That's crystal clear. But getting a rough idea of whether it's worth trying to reform the template (with or without a change in flags) is a different matter, and needn't take anywhere near as long. Regards, --WFC-- 06:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My hat in the ring

There's been a fair bit of convo here (and if I missed any points I apologise). Just thought I'd offer an alternative solution. Working off this mock template ([User:Rambo's Revenge/fsp2|testcases]]) I believe I've utilised the existing {{flagathlete}} and kept all current functions. It handles flag variations and, taken from code conversation, could use codes where repetitive or very common but for less common flags full names can be used. I believe it is fairly unobtrusive too. I have moved the other attributes to an extra column but I don't believe there is any problem with this. Would be interest in thoughts, or any other probles this might be bring that I could hopefully work around. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of {{flagathlete}}. In my opinion, it should be reserved for when athletes are representing their country in an individual sport, whereas in a football squad the flags are merely there to indicate the national make-up of the squad. – PeeJay 16:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think {{flagathlete}} is useful for simple lists (bullets or numbered) because the leading flags remain vertically aligned, but for tables, I think it's better to keep the flag adjacent to the (wikilinked) country code in a separate table column, rather than with the player name between the flag and the code. I prefer the use of {{flag|XYZ}} for that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to throw yet a other spanner in the works but the a lot of these flags in cases of unclear nationality are decided as far as I can tell on a whim with out regard for WP:RS. I've discussed this before at length and don't want to bog down this process so with that being said I prefer to see the country name and flags than flags alone Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also this has been mentioned a few times but I think an entire new layout like Glamorgan_County_Cricket_Club#Current_squad is the way to go Gnevin (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Status

What's the status of this proposal. Something needs to happen Gnevin (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there appears to be no consensus on the core issue, but that there are small positives to take from the discussion. I have attempted to "summarise" this RfC below:

1. Consensus among most football editors is that nationality is relevant.
2. There is consensus to continue using this template while this matter is under discussion. Although it is possible for individual articles to use customised squad templates, that would be bad for longer-term maintenance and internal consistency, and should therefore not be done.
3. There is no consensus to keep or change the implementation of the template. The RfC should close as a no consensus, while encouraging further discussion.
4. No changes should be made to this template without prior notification at WT:FOOTY.
5. No changes should be made to this template without either consensus at WT:FOOTY, or from a wider cross-section of the community at WP:CENT.
6. For as long as there is activity on this matter, it should be assumed that the template will eventualy either be amended to comply with the Manual of Style, or achieve a wider consensus that there are grounds to ignore the Manual of Style.
7. Imposing deadlines is unlikely to be constructive. Equally, prolonging this discussion indefinitely is not desirable. Editors should attempt to find a compromise between these conflicting factors.
8. From both sides of the flag divide, there is a feeling from several editors that it's worth exploring a redesign to the template. After exploring the options, it may be that we decide to stick with the current design.
9. Acceptance or rejection of a possible redesign should be treated entirely separately to the discussion of how we communicate nationality.
10. A redesign might be a good opportunity to consider whether there is any other information worth including in a squad template, and how to make the introductory note look better.
11. Any redesign should be done without prejudice to the flag issue. It should be designed to potentially accomodate flags, triagrammes, flags + triagrammes, or flags + country names.
12. WikiProject Football is one of the most active projects on Wikipedia. That does not give it a divine right to do as it pleases. However, its level of participation is such that, if it reaches a consensus at odds with a fairly specific subpage of the MoS, only a centralized decision could conceivably overturn that consensus.

My intention is to get feedback on potential pitfalls in the above statements, before putting them to a poll. Obviously polls are no substitute for consensus, but in the absence of consensus, does a poll on (roughly) the above statements seem like a good idea? --WFC-- 00:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the way to go. I agree the design issue is separate Gnevin (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Are we getting any nearer, here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I gave the matter what I would consider to be adequate exposure. Given that last time changes were made people cried about not being told, I find the lack of interest surprising. Although assuming silence = consensus would be a bad idea in this instance, I believe my summary was an accurate reflection of the RfC. Might be worth contacting an admin who has absolutely nothing to do with football or flags to judge whether that's the case. As for the next step, I would suggest that this is considered for central discussion, but that it must not go up there until neutral phrasing has been agreed, and both sides have the opportunity to put forward their respective views. --WFC-- 22:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, I think the answer is to put forward the suggested solutions to a support/oppose opinion finder on the WT:FOOTY page rather than here. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I find WT:FOOTY as a project is terrible for ignoring discussion like this and then get upset when the change is made and throwing their toys out of the pram Gnevin (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the consensus (the arguments against fall into an aesthetic category) is that the templates should abide the MOS in naming flags on first use. The problem among those who agree is the degree of implementation (whether country names should be in full or in ISO code). In light of this, the implementation of naming flags should be enacted. Refinement of this scheme (whether full-name or ISO, or other layouts) should follow later. Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. Although using ISO/FIFA codes alongside flags would be a change to abide by the letter of guidelines (flags should be accompanied on first use) rather than the spirit (article content should be understandable by all readers). All the likes of COD would do is add to the clutter to the page, without being unambiguous. For that reason, what at a glance appears to be the logical compromise would in fact be worse than no change at all. If we're going the whole way with names, it's clear from the initial furore that the redesign needs to come first. --WFC-- 06:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely we will ever please everyone, but I am reasonably comfortable with the current sandbox sortable table format with full country names moved the end. As I once stated I wasn't a big fan of the initial proposal so quietly avoided the discussion until the emotive rejections had passed. My initial objection was largely around how it made it look like a list of nationalities that were in the squad, not a list of players, and could sympathise with some of the other reactive comments that it looked awful. On the other hand, arguments regarding MOSFLAG and ACCESSIBILITY were well presented. I figure the sandbox format as of 24 August has the following benefits:

1. MOSFLAG compliant
2. Reasonably smart and tidy aesthetically
3. Sortable - can easily group by position or nationality, or revert to squad number order
4. Nationality moved to back end of table is better has it is less important than player name
5. Order of information matches "National football squad" series templates for consistency
6. Position key is a no-brainer inclusion which also complies with WP:ACCESS while allowing reduced clutter

Additional comments I would have are:

1. I prefer the FIFA nationality note at the top as it was before.
2. Looks better with a single column generally, and if that is consensus it would be a simple matter for a bot to remove {{fs mid}}. I'd be happy then in this instance to have 100% width or maybe a minimum column width for name such that most names are shorter than the column-width, and if you have a longer name it just gives more whitespace on other rows, which would negate my next point.
3. I'd also like to see a little space between name column and nationality column - purely aesthetic ease of reading.
4. An earlier suggestion on this page suggested a DOB column. I didn't like the look of that as full DOB (more clutter) but agree it would be useful information to see at a glance the rough age band of a squad. Could accommodated with use of the {{age}} template rather than {{birth date and age}}. A bot could easily add the blank parameter into pages and wikignomes would soon populate most of numbers.:::--ClubOranje^T 09:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• All of which means I support WFCforLife's earlier suggestion of presenting a fixed format for acceptance discussion and inviting interested parties such as WP:FOOTY to participate. Possibly worthwhile making a Template:Football squad player2 and applying it to a select series of low profile articles so people could see it in the real world.

I agree the flag issue and the change of design should be done separately . Change on design then flags Gnevin (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Errrm...yeah...sorry! Nothing on TV, I got BOLD and did the 8 New Zealand Football Championship teams with a {{Template:Football squad player2}}. I do think, however, that the answer to the flag question ultimately affects the layout design anyway.--ClubOranje^T 11:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we have [[England national football team|England]] rather than [[England]] Gnevin (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

General consensus is against doing so unless specifically referring to involvement with the national team. For instance I should probably convert this list over to the sort of practise you describe, but not this one (at least, not until I get around to converting it to match its little sister). --WFC-- 11:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Know what? I'd never clicked through on those links before! Given the note states it is showing FIFA eligibility I'd suggest it does relate to the national team. However, all I did so far for the FS player2 set was copy the current sandbox and do a couple of minor tweaks. Live testing already found a couple of potential issues with the coding that would need to be sorted for the table format. The sorting function also lends itself to a single column, as if there are two, you only sort each side which is kinda pointless--ClubOranje^T 11:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, no progress will be made unless something is put into action. I do not favour ISO codes as well, but if we have to move forward, then let those who want it have the option and defend it later. In this case, have a look at the tweaks I made to Template:Football squad player/sandbox, on display at Template:Football squad player/testcases. The default is full country names; setting flagname to "iso" sets up the triagrammes. I believe those who claim it is easier to recognise triagrammes surely can input Turkmenistan's iso code with ease themselves (a full name will still appear as a full name no matter what, thanks to the way {{flag}} is coded). Jappalang (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress is being made. The redesign is live on nine articles. Eight use identical syntax to {{football squad player}}, while the somewhat amended transclusion in Watford F.C. shows roughly what the finished redesign might look like (albeit sortname might have to be done manually by those who want to sort by surname). My assumption is that once we have worked out how to deal with {{fs mid}} and sorting matters, the new template will be rolled out after discussion.

By default the new template shows the fully expanded countries, and deals with the aesthetic problem. There are legitimate, MOS compliant reasons why a user might want to just display the flags, and therefore that should be the alternative to full names. For instance, bigger clubs tend to include one or both of the reserves and youth team. In almost all cases these teams will have fewer nationalities than the first team, and in most of these cases all of the nationalities will be covered by the fully expanded first team. A parameter to shorten countries hasn't been created yet AFAIK, but if it is, and articles use the parameter in an MOS-incompliant way, it will then be possible and acceptible to remove it. --WFC-- 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice you used {{sort|##|#}} on the single digit Watford numbers; any particular reason? it doesn't seem to need it to sort the numbers properly - at least not in my browser. The {{sortname}} makes perfect logical sense to me for a sortable table, so the NZFC teams have also been updated with that.

I would be suitably impressed with the wizardry if someone manages to sort a split table across both columns.--ClubOranje^T 12:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was previewing there were sorting issues. I'll create an example in a little while. --WFC-- 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorting the numbers a few times here demonstrates the problem. Given that there are only nine possible cases where {{sort}} is necessary (numbers 1-9), I'm sure it will be possible to code the template to receive |no=1 and output {{sort|01|1}}. --WFC-- 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

How bizarre! What have you done? Doesn't do that on _MY_ pages! ;-) it seems to go through a repeating cycle.--ClubOranje^T 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's because I used an emdash (&mdash) instead of a hyphen (-). Given that emdashes are widely used, it would probably be a good idea to hard-code a solution into the template. I made an attempt at it the other day, but I'm not really familiar with the syntax. --WFC-- 06:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The changes I made to the sandbox allow no names, ISO names, or full names, so I fail to see the point of "that should be the alternative to full names." The testcases are functional and at least compliant (on default) with the MOS. I fail to understand what is the hold up now; no policy- or guideline-backed opposition has been given (or even a valid point that MOS-compliance leads to a deterioration of encyclopaedic quality). Instead, valid opinion point to implementing a template that can be compliant. Aesthetics (including whatever issue {{fs mid}}, sorting, and such) can be improved later. I believe the impetus to improve the template, making it compliant with the MOS, has been railroaded into some complicated project that will see no light while allowing the current violation to persist further. Jappalang (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The holdup is that countries do look bad in the old template, and that the new one isn't quite ready. Relax, it will happen. After last time, it's clear that rushing the change is only going to be counterproductive in the long run. --WFC-- 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What's still to do with the new template? If I can do anything template-wise to expedite this then I'm happy to take requests. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Coding wise, the only thing I can see on the to-do list is ensuring that numbers 1-9 sort properly when emdashes are present. In my opinion the next step would be to protect the templates, roll them out to featured articles, leave it a few days to get some feedback, and assuming that the overall reception is positive, merge the templates. --WFC-- 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a good thing to do would be to change the position codes for full names, i.e. change "GK" for "Goalkeeper", "DF" for "Defender", etc. I would also suggest moving the "other" parameter to a new column, entitled "Notes" or something. – PeeJay 09:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I agree that now is a good time to do that consider moving "other" to its own column. Almost forgot that "other" was a parameter- I usually find out that a player has joined us on loan by checking my watchlist. --WFC-- 10:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Other" can easily be moved to a "notes" column if there's consensus for it. Let me know if there's consensus for that and I'll get it changed in sixty seconds. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We should probably leave the positions as they are for the time being. I see no point in stalling this process over a relatively unimportant point. Positions are now in the key, so it's really more a matter of taste than anything else. --WFC-- 11:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok Chris, get it so it will sort across twin table (i.e. using fs mid)- then I will truly shout your name as a Wiki Template God;-). That would make it the bees knees. I disagree with expanding positions to full descriptions, I'd rather see a key. The main purpose or a squad list is to see who is in the squad. Secondary would be the make up of the squad, a) as far as nationalities go, and b) the relative age of the squad. Every squad has goalkeepers, defenders and strikers, expanding that to full descriptions only detracts from the real important information.--ClubOranje^T 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorting across both tables at once isn't possible using the current sortable javascript. Fixing that is beyond my capabilities and will probably have to be punted to MediaWiki development, though I'd be surprised if it were possible at all as the columns are really two independent tables. WFC: the test case here sorts properly with emdashes already, so fas as I can see; it has a quirk where there are four sortable orders (as the squad numbers can be interpreted either digit-by-digit or as a whole), but that's nothing to do with the table header AFAIK. Anything else? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If {{football squad player2}} were able to read |no=1 as {{sort|01|1}}, |no=2 as {{sort|02|2}}, and so on up to 9, would that reduce the number of sortable orders to two? --WFC-- 11:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd think so. That might be an elegant solution. I would note that I'd really rather there weren't a dogfood version of the present code being deployed on high-profile articles for the time being, by the way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree, and WFC must also as he only put it on the Watford article.. ;-) --ClubOranje^T 12:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The template as implemented on the Watford page is roughly how I think the template should look when rolled out. It shouldn't be put onto FAs until we're satisfied that it's robust, but I see putting it onto FAs when ready as a good stepping stone to full rollout. --WFC-- 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, got a fix for the dashes. Anyone else fancy a go at hairy string parsing code for the player lines sort key, or is that my job? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you talking about player names? --WFC-- 13:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Numbers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the following switch statement will do the trick. --WFC-- 13:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

{{#switch:{{{no}}}
|1={{sort|01|1}}
|2={{sort|02|2}}
|3={{sort|03|3}}
|4={{sort|04|4}}
|5={{sort|05|5}}
|6={{sort|06|6}}
|7={{sort|07|7}}
|8={{sort|08|8}}
|9={{sort|09|9}}
|#default={{{no}}}
}}

Aha. Fancy testing that to make sure? If so, we're about done for technical problems, right? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the kind of sorting I've successfully pulled off in the very recent past I'm almost embarrassed to say this, but I can't seem to get it to work. I'm sure the above switch statement is the way to go, I'm just struggling with the syntax. --WFC-- 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Try it now. Switch works perfectly for me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! --WFC-- 16:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the new template seems ready for serious consideration at WT:FOOTY (and I accept Number 57's suggestion that the discussion itself should go there). But the one concern I can see coming up is the rollout of {{sortname}}. It's simple enough to use, but is it remotely conceivable that a bot would be able to assist with rolling it out? Working through the problem logically I'm convinced that it's technically possible (I'll write out a word-based version of the process if anyone's interested). If it is possible, maybe a bot already exists to do it? --WFC-- 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Random break

Has this process stalled again ? Gnevin (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ready to go. But after the early controversy I promised not to take the lead on this. --WFC-- 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ROI flags

Got another problem. Why does nat=Republic of Ireland give Republic of Ireland, while nat=ROI gives Ireland? (note that I just created Template:Country data ROI as an alias to Template:Country data Republic of Ireland, and so this might be my fault.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ack, only just realised that you changed this. As I'm sure you're hinting Chris, we really should be using Republic, given that "Ireland" can literally mean the island in other sports, and that the IFA ran the pre-1922 team. {{flagcountry}} uses ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, so ROI should point to "Ireland", but I can't for the life of me see how it's doing it. --WFC-- 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I'm lost. Any suggestions for who to ping on this? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The first two people to edit the template have edited in the last month, but User:Andrwsc seems the best bet if we're looking for a quick response. --WFC-- 13:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this template; it just calls {{flagicon}}, so the tricolour is a clickable-link to Republic of Ireland as expected. Where are you seeing a link to Ireland? Any why did you create a new country code when IRL is a widely recognized standard code? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't previously read the wall of text above this section, but I see now you are working on a sandbox version. The "problem" is that {{flagcountry}} will always use the shortname alias value inside the country_data template, and that is "Ireland" for Template:Country data Republic of Ireland. Note that the link is still to Republic of Ireland; it's only the display text that is shortened. Basically you get [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]. Is that a problem? My understanding is that "Republic of Ireland" (shown in full) is appropriate for the national team (e.g. output of {{fb|IRL}} is Republic of Ireland) but we're referring to nations here, not national teams, so is it such a problem that the {{flagcountry}} output is what it is? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that in the past there was a Ireland team that has been superceded by the Northern Irish and Republic teams, hence it is a good idea to avoid using "Ireland" as a nationality for modern-day players. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am the editor who coded the Ireland flag templates to work the way they do. But my point is that the nationality for these players isn't simply "Ireland" as you state, it is [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], and I'm asking what's wrong with that? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Because FIFA recognises Northern Ireland as the successor to the initial Ireland team. FIFA would never call Northern Ireland "Ireland", but by the same token they go out of their way to use the entire phrase "Republic of Ireland". --WFC-- 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

nat parameter optional

Could the nat=XXX please be optional so I dont have to worry about MOSFLAG. I would like to simply remove it from the player squad list. Sandman888 (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As in, remove the entire column? --WFC-- 13:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Sandman888 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For the hassle the debate that debate would entailGiven the hassle a debate on the matter would cause if we introduced it, it would make more sense to simply create a wikitable for that article. It would have the added advantage of simpler source code as well. --WFC-- 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But the present scheme doesnt comply with MOSFLAGS? It could be an optional parameter, as indicated. Sandman888 (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The scheme here does (which is what I thought we were talking about). --WFC-- 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Use in basketball team articles

I noticed something while looking at the article for Olympiacos B.C. I've noticed it in some other articles, but this one made me decide to post.

The "Football squad" template is being used to list players transferring in and out of a team. Only one problem with its use in basketball articles: the "Football squad start" specifically references FIFA. For basketball, the correct governing body is FIBA. For basketball, the text should read (I'm correcting the text for clarity):

Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under [[International Basketball Federation|FIBA]] eligibility rules. Players may hold one or more more non-FIBA nationalities.

Think someone can fix this issue? Simplest way I see is to create a basketball version, though it might be a good idea to run it by WikiProject Basketball first. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this template was made for football squads (hence the name), I suggest making a basketball version, or not using it at all for that purpose. Digirami (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

...or, instead of criticising people for wanting to adapt a good thing, we could do this. --WFC-- 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Positions

What if a player is frequently played in more then one position e.g. Defender and Midfielder, and a primary position cannot be distinguished? Is it possible to input two positions successfully? Half Price (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, in that case just refer to the one position listed in the team website or, alternatively, to the one he is mostly used to. --Angelo (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Half Price (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The header

My other reservation is that it might be seen to confirm the current header. FIFA eligibility rules do not allocate one nationality to every player in the workd, they simply indicate what will, and therefore what will not, be permitted if a national association wishes to name a player to its team. If Brazil were to decide that their World Cup campiagn would have gone better had they had a short-sighted overweight 47 year old with experience of playing at right back in the heights of inter-seminary football tournaments among their squad, FIFA would have told Dunga that I was not available to them, but FIFA has no opinion as to whether I am English, Irish or Northern Irish, nor does it have eligibiilty rules that would create any default position or order of preference between my potential eligibilities. The current header is factually wrong in that regard. Kevin McE (talk) 9:13 am, Today (UTC+1)

I'd just like to reassure editors that I am in no way endorsing the wording of the current header; I'm not happy with it either. The simple fact of the matter is that I did not want the changes I was introducing to be undermined by another discussion on a matter that has previously not achieved consensus. If there is any possibility of changing it I will be absolutely delighted, but the header does not affect the changes I have proposed, or vice-versa. Regards, --WFC-- 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The change above is to simply bring the template into compliance with MOSFLAG. The discussion of whether flags and nationality are to be included should not detract or derail the previous section's change from implementation, and should be a separate topic. Jappalang (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the wording needs changing. It's not accurate simply because we aren't using the same criteria as FIFA. As Kevin McE points out, they don't even "assign" nationalities to most players (if any; as far as I know it's primarily the national association's job to verify eligibility, and the criteria for eligibility vary according to each country's nationality law).

The header should accurately reflect the criteria actually used in our articles to assign flags: it's the country of last national representation, or if there's no caps the country of birth. So I would suggest

"Flags indicate most recent national team representation, otherwise country of birth".

Knepflerle (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I'm not implying that these are the criteria that should be used; just acknowledging the fact they are used. Knepflerle (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Player Name

Is there a correct way to name a player in the template? I'm involved in a discussion here. I would like to gain consensus before reverting related articles. My thoughts are that the title name of a players article should be correct entry, anything else should be detailed on the specific players article. Examples of the different approach can be seen here and here. I appreciate your views (and yes the squad number references are contentious too, but that's for another place). Thanks. gonads³ 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Also asked here but asking for responses on this discussion page, as it seems more valid. Thanks. gonads³ 17:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)