Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Flags

A perennial issue, it seems. There are currently two RFCs on the usage of flags at WT:MOSICON. The issue of the flags on the Manchester United article was raised, and it appears that this template is the cause of the issue. My thoughts are that the use of the flags is not undesirable in and of itself, but the positioning of them next to the player's number is - what connection is there between the player's nationality and his jersey number? None that I can see. I would suggest that the template be recoded so that the flag appears before the player's name, with a space between the flag and the name. Constructive input to the RFC is welcome. Mjroots (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We did devise a solution at Template:Football squad player2. The only sticking point was that we couldn't figure out how to roll it out on a mass scale (~5000 articles). I was very vocal (admittedly too vocal) at the Manchester United FAC, because the-then consensus template was being used, and its use was being held against the nominators. By contrast, if a football article were nominated now, reviewers would be within their rights to insist on the usage of {{Football squad player2}}. It's currently in use at Seattle Sounders FC, for example. —WFC— 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The (only?) issue with Template:Football squad player2 rollout concerned implementing {{sortname}} which is perceived to be difficult - although having seen SporkBot and Petan-Bot deal to the infobox deprecated parameters issues I think a clever botmaker could handle it. If it gets mandated that flags must go or have textual accompaniment that is an easy fix to current template, as is moving the location of the flag, per this test-case page which is simply using a slightly modified version of the {{Football squad player}} template. Long term I support the Football squad player2 sortable version. --ClubOranje^T 11:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me remind you that there is Template:Fs2 player, which is in use in all Argentine top-flight clubs, such as Boca Juniors, and a few others in South America. It already (sorta) deals with the issue at hand discussed as WT:MOSICON. This template also has the added benefit of serving as a navigational template. I'm not sure what the added benefit is of Template:Football squad player2, besides sorting, but I find that "benefit" questionable. In fact, is it really needed? I would say no. You just need to list/show who is in the squad, plain and simple. Because of sorting, any squad list is/will become big in terms of how much space it takes in the article. I look at how NFL teams and MLB teams and how they handle 50+ player rosters with complete coaching staff and awe its simplicity and ease to take in (more so than an NHL squad, which doesn't even have the coaching staff included). You will lose that if they had to become sortable. I know most football teams don't exceed 50 players, but Manchester United's squad, for example, is pushing 40 (as are so many others). Digirami (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we please include the countries' name beside the flag?Curb Chain (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I just created {{Fs player2 sort}} which should address the difficulty of using/updating/managing {{sortname}}. --SkotyWA^T_C 04:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Nation Parameter

The current template only shows the flag of a country. According to WP:MOSICON, the name of the country or subnational division should represented as well.

There is ongoing debate from sections 13 to 16 about this issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons), but there is likely no consensus to amend the guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fix microformat

Please fix this template's hCard microformat by changing:

<span class="fn">{{{name}}}{{{ref|}}}</span>

to:

<span class="fn">{{{name}}}</span>{{{ref|}}}

There should be no visible effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags alignment

Resolved

 – Done.

Greetings,

Since not all flags are of the same width, would it be possible to align the flags to the center of the column instead of the right? Thanks. Digirami (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC To Gauge Consensus For: "The Addition Of The Country's Name Beside The Flag"

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

---

I am taking the bold step of closing this prematurely, because it is entirely redundant to the broader RfC here. This discussion should not take place until that discussion reaches a conclusion. If there is sitewide consensus on flag usage, we should probably follow it; if there is not, there will be a point to resuming this discussion. —WFC— 08:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an rfc to gauge consensus for: "The Addition Of The Country's Name Beside The Flag".Curb Chain (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that {{flagicon}} is used instead of {{flag}} or {{flagcountry}}. Which one should be used?Curb Chain (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record I am in favour of this discussion taking place at some stage. However, I do not think a discussion is appropriate at this time, given that there is a more general RfC which may (or may not) result in sitewide consensus. Any discussion that we have should be based on the outcome to that one. —WFC— 08:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

{{flagicon}} is currently used, instead of {{flag}} or {{flagcountry}} (which include the country name). Should one of the latter be used?Curb Chain (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - CurbChain: there appear to be a couple other (older) RfCs on similar topics. Could you please list the RfCs here, and provide links to them. And also briefly explain how they are different from what you are proposing? Then other editors (such as myself) can provide more helpful input. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

For sure:

A recent rfc was posted on Manual of Style (icons) which discussed how not having the name of the flag with the graphic can be ambiguous because not all readers have an equal recognition of flag repertoire.

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Flags_in_lists proceeded this.

And Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Flagicons_in_infoboxes proceeded Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)#Flags_in_lists.Curb Chain (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, include country name - Many readers of WP will not be able to recognize flags. Even globe-trotting users can sometimes get flags confused when they are similar (e.g. Cuba and Puerto Rico). The country names are small, and won't clutter the template much. Benefits far outweight drawbacks. --Noleander (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think the current template requires "improving". If readers are confused about a flag they can hover over it or click it to find out what country it represents. I also believe it will clutter the template quite a lot (you only have to look at Watford_F.C.#Current_squad to see just how different the outcome is). Number 57 09:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Some users may not be using a mouse. For the sake of simplicity of this argument: Some may have recently installed a computer system and not yet have the drivers or hardware for a mouse yet.Curb Chain (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If that's the best defence you can mount, then I rest my case! Number 57 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Many users of WP will not have mouses. The trend these days, of course, is away from desktop/laptop computers and towards tablets and smart phones. In the latter devices (1) There is no concept of "hovering"; (2) the "click to see" is slow and annoying; (3) some tablets will not even display the flags correctly (my brand new iPad, running safari, shows white rectangles where the WP flag icons should be); (4) Some users with physical disabilities may benefit from having the text present. --Noleander (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I look at the article you mention, and ask myself how anyone could consider it cluttered. The only things I can think of are the close proximity of the squad numbers and the positions: this could easily be remedied, and has nothing to do with the wider concept. If I had it my way I'd do away with the key and just spell the positions out, as there's no pressing need to save space with only one column. —WFC— 14:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - one, I think perhaps you're underestimating the intelligence of our readers by saying "they don't recognise flags." Two, as Number 57 rightly says, if people are unsure and it's causing them pain and/or distress, they can hover over and/or click through. There's an old saying - if it ain't broke, don't fix it! GiantSnowman 10:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps in Europe and Asia people are more flag-savvy. But in the USA, where I come from, not many people are familiar with foreign flags: I can guarantee you that 95% of Americans will not know what the flag of England is (although they may recognize UK flag). --Noleander (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And that saying is close to my heart. But if something isn't optimised for the majority, as this template isn't, then it is broke. —WFC— 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Add country name - I think there is a need for this and it isn't insulting readers intelligence. I just think the presented options are not yet as good as they could be. Personally, I still prefer this kind of option. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• New option - How about something like this, which I created previously? – PeeJay 13:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That link has several options there, but they all seem to include the country name or abbreviation, so I suppose you are supporting the RfC proposal in general? So is the essence of your "new option" the use of the 3-letter abbreviation rather than the full country name? --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that if we must add the country name, we need to think of a better way of doing it than simply shoving it cack-handedly into the existing template. To be honest, I'm not fussed about whether or not the country name is included, as long as it looks good. If we add it to the existing template next to the flags, we would have the country name immediately followed by the player's name, which would look odd. With my version, there would be a line between each column, demarcating the columns clearly. – PeeJay 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If country names are introduced, I'd rather have abbreviations than full names. GiantSnowman 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that abbreviations should be adequate: seems like a good compromise that balances information with space. --Noleander (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would think that if we were to derive from the existing template we would likely have enough sense to change the order along these lines --ClubOranje^T 11:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Add country name The last time around, there was general agreement that we should be switching over to Template:Football squad player2. It didn't happen because of the difficulty in switching over using an automated process. I see no reason not to roll out now. If it's rolled out without sortname, those affected will soon remedy that. Articles that are left after a month or so will on the whole be articles that are wasting their time with a squad list anyway. —WFC— 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah, that template is ridiculously ugly! GiantSnowman 14:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So is it a general agreement that the template:football squad player2 template is going to be rolled out? Sorry I'm fairly new to this so if it is to be rolled out what needs to happen next?? Pereirab04 14:22, 07 July 2011.

If consensus is agreed, then, in simple terms, to roll something like this out; someone clever will tidy up the required coding and implement in a few articles for live test purposes, then someone will request a bot for conversion process, and someone really clever will write a bot to change over the rest. --ClubOranje^T 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with inclusion of nationality besides flag, on the basis of providing information. An encyclopaedia does not "insult its readers' intelligence", as some comments would have it, if it makes information simpler, clearer and more accessible. That's what an encyclopaedia is supposed to do! (BTW, Template:Football squad player2 seems to be fit and proper for the purpose.)-The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Add country name. This should be an encyclopædia ather than a collection of decorative images; but if folk insist on having lots of little flag pictures, the least we can do is put the actual text next to them. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Use FIFA code instead of full country name For example, {{flag|ENG}} → ENG. The impact on table column sizes is minimal, these codes are widely used in various external sources (and therefore reasonably well known), but are also linked to the country article for readers who don't know some of the more obscure codes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems like a sensible compromise to me as (a) it won't distort the table by having really long country names, but instead will give largely uniform length ones and (b) is using an official system (the kind you'd see when watching a match on tv). Number 57 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is intended for a general readership; if we must emphasise the nationality of many people even though they're not actually representing their country (and their nationality has minimal connection to their notability), we should at least write the nationality out, rather than relying on subject-specific codes or decorative flags. bobrayner (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, one of the main complaints against using small flags is that some of them can be easily confused, e.g. England and Northern Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, Ireland and Ivory Coast. While writing out the full country name next to the flag would solve this problem, it also presents its own problems, as Number 57 has outlined, in that it would distort the table to have a whole bunch of country names all of different lengths. For that reason, I am in full support of using the FIFA country codes. As Andrwsc said, the codes are widely used and would therefore be mostly recognisable, and they would be linked so the ones that aren't recognisable could be identified through one click of the mouse. This is an official system, so it's not like we'd be making up the codes. This sounds like the perfect solution. – PeeJay 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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

An aside

Do we actually have sources for all these nationalities of thousands of football players? Or will some of them have been assumptions based on their surname or the team they play for? bobrayner (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We would never assume a player's nationality based on surname or the club they are contracted to. If they have played for a national team, that is the nationality used. If not, it's usually done by birthplace. – PeeJay 16:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet the tables are usually fully populated with flags - even articles for relatively minor teams. Somebody would have been extremely diligent in researching the birthplaces of thousands of minor footballers - but, alas, sources are rarely cited. Do we really have sources for the birthplace of every footballer, including the ones who have no BLP of their own? Also, it seems to have been assumed that birthplace is same thing as nationality; that assumption would be false. If false assumptions or unsourced claims are systematically being made about large numbers of living people, that could be very worrying. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, birth place is usually one of the key stats about footballers and is frequently mentioned in most of the sources that are used (Soccerbase, Neil Brown, Rothmans etc). Soccerbase (probably the most common source for British footballers in the past couple of decades) actually states nationality as well. Number 57 13:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This side discussion is moot, because the idea of adding a birthplace "nationality" flag is directly forbidden by WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is moot

This entire RfC is mooted by the Manual of Style, by policy, and by a broader RfC:

• Using the name (or trigram[me]) with the flag is required by WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names
• Wikiprojects (nor football fans genreally, nor would-be WP:OWNers of some particular template, nor any other gaggle of editors) cannot disregard sitewide guidelines and opt to make up their own rules, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Trying to do it via an RfC doesn't change that.
• Note also that an enormous thread (in a much larger RfC attracting site-wide input over several months) at WT:MOSICONS#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles (2014), the proper venue. It clearly failed to change consensus, and did not succeed in forging a new consensus to alter this guideline to be more permissive with regard to sports articles.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How about some substantive discussion?

The revised code in question is in Template:Football squad player/sandbox and Template:Football squad player/sandbox/doc. Also Template:Football squad start/sandbox.

Lord Roem full-protected Template talk:Football squad player/doc after Number 57 kept reflexively mass-reverting all changes to it, without ever raising any substantive objection to or concern about even one single aspect of the changes on the talk page. So why, GiantSnowman, would you think it's a good idea to reflexively mass-revert all those changes again, right down to typo fixes, also without ever raising any substantive objection to or concern about even one single aspect of the changes on the talk page? And both of you are admins, so you certainly know better, or shouldn't be admins. WP:BOLD is policy. WP:BRD is just an optional process, and it's one you're not even engaging in because you're studiously avoiding the D part. Given that you did not get the result you wanted from the near-interminable RfC at WT:MOSICONS that could have supported some of what you are trying to misuse flag icons to do in this template, on what basis/bases are you still objecting, and to what, if you still are? And what about rationales for every other reverted change, the ones that don't have to do with icons? "Undiscussed" isn't by itself a revert rationale (again, WP:BOLD is policy). I also have to observe that the changes were in this /doc page for a month after the expiration of the protection, and all during the protection, yet zero problems of any kind arose, nor did any objections from anyone else for any reason, just you two playing WP:TE games. [After I wrote this, one complaint was raised about lack of difference between the |name= and |other= output, resolved in the sandbox code.] The burden of proof is on you. Please enlighten us with an explanation as to why this template's documentation should revert to advising use that directly contradicts MOS:ICONS in multiple ways, and why no one but you is allowed to edit here without permission from WP:FOOTY. Seems like a good place to start. Or maybe you can respond with something like "I didn't like point X is this particular edit of yours [diff here], but I was in a hurry and a bad mood so I mass-reverted you, which wasn't helpful; let's discuss X reasonably and civilly."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss reasonably and civilly, don't start a discussion by lying – it's not conducive to a positive debate. I did not "reflexively mass-reverting all changes to it". I only removed the parts that you added that were clearly contrary to reality. This is a diff of the overall set of edits that you made and then I reverted - it's quite clearly not a mass revert, as I left in many of the changes you made.

But anyway, it's been explained repeatedly that the template does not contradict MOS:ICONS. The guideline specifically allows for the use of flags in squad lists - see the WP:WORDPRECEDENCE section of the guideline: "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." Player nationality is relevant to football club squads. Number 57 11:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to GiantSnowman, not you, though your revertwarring several months ago wasn't much more selective than GiantSnowman's lately.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish you seem to have removed the italicization of the "other" parameter which is used usually to note captaincy and loan status of players. Can we have it back please? The italicization makes it easier visually to distinguish between the name of the player and the brackets content. --SuperJew (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because your edit was undiscussed and far too controversial. Why have you reverted again rather than discuss? As SuperJew states you have made changes that are pointless. I have reverted again, as you need to adhere to WP:BRD, especially when there is clear opposition to your changes. GiantSnowman 14:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's hypocritical; I'm the only one who's attempted to engage in any of the "D" in BRD, even going all the way back to June. Even after I effectively force you to respond here by being the one to invoke BRD myself and setup the discussion, you still don't respond with anything substantive at all. Lying? Do you really want to split hairs over what you destructively mass-reverted? Fine.

Why did you blanket-revert the following?:

• Compliance with MOS:ICONS in not making display of a flag icon mandatory for the template to function
• Ability to apply this template to more than association football by not hardcoding all position values
• Ability to include more specific position values than the defaults, even for assoc. football
• Compliance to MOS:LINK in not over-linking, by making it possible to re-use position values without linking them again (and documentation of how to do it); see #Overlinking above – your incautious mass-reverting broke the resolution of that issue, which has been flagged for fixing since 2011!
• A less ambiguous parameter name than "no" (while remaining backward compatible)
• A less ambiguous parameter name than "other" (while remaining backward compatible)
• Documentation that complies with MOS:ICONS and instructs us to use flag icons only for sport representative nationality in intl. competition
• Documentation that explains how to use the template for other sports
• CSS kerning to keep the player number from running up against the flag icon (if present)
• Correction of template parameters so that only a player name is required, it doesn't have to be specified with |name= for no reason, and the template doesn't spit errors when all other parameters are omitted
• Lots of other documentation improvements. Given this (incomplete) list, yes, it was a mass revert.

The reverts have likely broken use of the template in real articles: Your reverting was patently destructive. It's quite likely it even messed up deployment of these templates as they were currently documented, because they'd been documented that way since July, including with several parameter names not supported by the code you reverted to, in which case they remain broken on various articles that have used them some time between July and now. That alone is reason enough to undo your revert immediately, unless you're personally wiling to examine every single use of these templates and fix any that are broken due to your incautious, one-liner dismissive, WP:POINTy, WP:OWNish revertwarring.

"Controversial"? There isn't any controversy. You haven't controverted a single actual change I've implemented, there's just you mass-reverting with the bogus "undiscussed" rationale, which violates WP:BOLD policy, then you making false claims that the changes remove all flagicons, and there's one editor wanting back a visual difference between the |other= and |name=, a 15-second fix.[1] See Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain reverts. See also WP:Edit warring#What edit warring is, where your repeated deletion of my additions fails to qualify under any of the exemptions. Opposition to one tiny aspect of one change that is fixed by the addition of four ' characters doesn't justify a revert of that scale, and you know that.

Icons: You also know that the changes don't prevent the use of flag icons – go see Template talk:Football squad player/sandbox, and what's there? Flag icons, using precisely the same syntax as before (the changed code did not remove flag icons from one single article, though per MOS:ICONS they need to be removed from many of them). So who's lying now? The /doc changes (among various practical matters that your reverting nuked) advise against the abuse of flag icons, per MOS:ICONS#Use of flags for sportspersons.

MOS:ICONS does not say what you say it says, about sportspeople. Here's what it really says with regard to that topic, the topic of this template, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flags for sportspersons: "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". Again, who's lying now? It goes on to contradict you further: "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality", and so on. This template is frequently abused to stick flag icons in squad lists where they are not national squads and where it does not indicate representative nationality in international competition, but simply what country teams are playing in, what country someone's former team was based in, what country someone is a legal citizen of, etc., etc. This is precisely the invalid usage Number 57 was editwarring to retain several months ago, and the usage that you and that editor sought to gain support and MOS:ICONS changes in favor of, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles, and it did not go your way. It's time to drop the stick.

No substantive objections: You still have not raised a single actionable issue with regard to anything specific in the changes, only SuperJew has, and his visual differencing concerns have been resolved in the sandbox code (use of italics here actually doesn't fit any use-case outlined at MOS:ITALICS, so it would be better to use <small>...</small>, for example, to distinguish these notes from the player names, as italicization is a form of emphasis not just differencing. Using an HTML element like that also permits CSS kerning with padding-left to improve readability, as the sandbox code now does.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you really need to make yourself familiar with WP:TLDR. Responses over a page long are almost impossible to adequately respond to. Unless your intention is to WP:BLUDGEON us into submission, please break the debate down into different sections - maybe section heading them is the way forward.

But to try to address the comments I think were a response to me:

1. "You also know that the changes don't prevent the use of flag icons" I know they didn't prevent it, and I never said they did. My concern was that you were inserting misleading instructions into the documentation about when flags should be used, and claiming that their use was deprecated, when it was not.
2. You claim that "MOS:ICONS does not say what you say it says, about sportspeople". As I quoted it verbatim by copying and pasting (hence why I used quotation marks), you're wrong (see the WP:WORDPRECEDENCE section again if you don't believe me).
3. I don't disagree that it also says "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality" or that "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality", and I have never claimed otherwise. This template even has a heading to make this clear (and which is transcluded with every use): "Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality."
4. the claim that flags are used to represent "what country teams are playing in, what country someone's former team was based in" is completely incorrect - the flags are based solely on the representative nationality of the players. Player nationality is a widely sourceable fact, even in the lower divisions - here's Soccerbase's squad list for Tranmere Rovers (level 4 in England). Here's one for semi-pro team Nuneaton Town (level 5). As you can see, they clearly delineate player nationality (using flags!).

You make two claims that I have lied, but neither are true. I have no problem having a robust debate, but we can't have a productive one if falsehoods and false accusations are involved. Please calm down and approach this rationally. As I said above, if you want to post a long response, it may be best to separate this into sub-sections so they can be addressed properly rather than splurge everything out in one go. Thanks, Number 57 21:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are utterly convinced of your [mis]interpretation of MOS:ICONs, despite a huge RFC telling you you're wrong, so I guess we need another RFC or something. I note that neither you nor GiantSnowman have answered one single question with regard to what the both of you have repeatedly reverted over 3 months of slow-motion, tag-team editwarring. This is pretty much the very definition of tendentiousness, and it verges on questionable-faith editing, since you pair have bulldozed all sorts of fixes in your zeal to get your way on an unrelated point, and you persist despite the fact that it's been pointed out to you already that you broke things. (GiantSnowman recently, you before the page was protected, but here again defending effectively the same "use brute reversion force and admin imprimatur to win at all costs" behavior). If you can't follow a bulletized list and a few simple paragraphs that even have boldfaced intros to make it clear what each one is about, I think you need a new hobby, since 99% of Wikipedia consists of paragraphs and lists. [And I have no control over or ability to predict your screen size or what you psychologically interpret as "over a page long"; on my monitor it's not even close to a screenful.] Why on earth would we fork a simple "why are you two reflexively mass-reverting everything with no regard for the fallout?" discussion into a series of separate threads (i.e. even more paragraphs to read), other than to cloud the issue further, and permit you play yet another round of WP:IDHT and WP:TLDR drama games? No thanks. I have way more productive things to do here. Re: Your #1 point: – I'm not going to play "he said, she said" games; what matters here is what my code fixed, and what y'all broke in your revertwarring. #2 – You missed the "about sportspeople" part. #3 – I know what that above-table notice says, and people deploying this template are frequently ignoring it. Your #4 point – If that were actually the case, this dispute never would have arisen; the fact that this template, before I fixed it, and again now that you lot have WP:FACTIONed away my fixes, hardcodes the flag icon makes your statement about its use demonstrably impossible. D'oh. I agree we all need to stop using the word "lying"; I used it in a sarcastic way to make the point that it's rude. But you're self-evidently wrong on this. The very reason I ever ended up here to fix this is that the forcing of the flagicon means that when this template is used in subnational team articles, it's wrongly including flag icons, or it spits errors; |nat= is required by your version of the template. There is no other possible outcome. I think part of the problem here is that you're apparently misunderastnding what representative nationality is; it doesn't exist at the national and subnational competition level, only at the international level. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR, as you keep on being told. Your wall-of-text method is actually hindering your own case, as people will be put off joining the discussion and any changes will not be agreed. GiantSnowman 06:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

From your last response, there are two issues here:

1. You don't seem to understand the point of this template - it is only used on subnational team articles - there is a different one for national teams ({{nat fs g player}}). Both templates are designed to include information relevant to the respective level of football.
2. You assert that "representative nationality... doesn't exist at the national level", but as I pointed out above, representative nationality exists and is entirely relevant to club football for a number of reasons (foreign player quotas being one of the key ones); that's why it's displayed by us on Wikipedia, and by other websites that list club squads.

An additional point is that you state that the current coding requires the nat parameter and that it spits errors - it doesn't. If you don't enter anything into that field, nothing is displayed. Try editing Ipswich Town F.C.#First team squad, and simply delete the trigrammes - there are no errors. Number 57 12:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking

Unresolved

The linking of each instance of a postion (such as "MF") and of flags is a breach of WP:OVERLINK - and such abbreviations should be marked up using {{Abbr}} to enhance accessibility. How can this best be addressed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have fixed (to the extent possible) the position-linking problem, by modifying the parameter to use the bare value of the parameter as the default #switch output when it doesn't match one of the pre-defined values that cause auto-linking. Thus, subsequent cases of "MF" (or whatever) can be unlinked by giving them as M⁠F (using a non-breaking, zero-width space).

The abbr issue could be addressed with {{abbrlink}}, but this will simply result in even more visual clutter, by adding dotted underlines to all of these things; we already get a tool tip when we hover over the link target (namely the article title of the link target, which in all of these cases is also the meaning of the abbreviation in question). The link itself already serves the purpose that any abbr markup would provide, by giving readers a near-instant way to find out what the abbreviation means.

The flag problem is not that they're linked (all flag icon templates link the flag icons, and this is desirable), but rather than they're being used at all when not genuinely helpful. The only case they should be used is when one table lists members of more than one national team in international competition, e.g. a table of all goalkeepers and their stats at the 2014 FIFA World Cup, or whatever. They should not be redundantly used for national and sub-national teams when we already know they're all players for a team of/in same country, nor (worse yet) used to indicate citizenship or birthplace, a blatant MOS:ICONS violation. I've updated the docs to reflect this more clearly.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Actually, GiantSnowman broke this fix with his mass reverts of my work here, so I'm marking it {{Unresolved}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - by all means make minor changes; but do not completely change a template that is used on hundreds/thousands of articles without prior discussion. It's very simple. GiantSnowman 06:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed; there was prior discussion. This section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion about overlinking resulted in consensus for this edit (and earlier, identical)? GiantSnowman 11:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop playing passive-aggressive games. You know very well that reverting is heavy-handed, and that if you object to one among various changes you undo the one you object to, then raise a discussion about it on the talk page; you don't just revert all or most work by someone out of spite, with a bogus rationale like "undiscussed", open no discussion, and then avoid discussing anything substantive when challenged on your shotgun reverts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

By all means make this minor requested edit. GiantSnowman 08:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Header- add "Nat"

In the Android Wikipedia app (at least on my Moto X), the nationality flags are not displayed, instead it only shows a minimum-width column with dots instead of flags. On other team sport templates (eg. Template:Ice hockey team roster) that have nationality flags, they have [[Nationality|Nat]] at the top of the nationality column and the flags show up without a problem.

Would there be any objection to adding [[Nationality|Nat]] to the header to ensure the flags are displayed across all platforms?

Bonus question, should we add a link to "Position" so it is [[Association football positions|Position]]?

It would end up as:

No. Nat Position Player 1 GK [[|United Nations]] John Q. Footballer instead of No. Position Player 1 GK [[|United Nations]] John Q. Footballer

Num1dgen (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Multiple positions

How can one handle multiple positions a player can play? For example Hapoel Ashkelon F.C. has pos=GK|pos=MF for Galil Ben Shanan, but only one (MF) is displayed. --CiaPan (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Only the second one is displayed because that's how Wikipedia's code handles duplicate parameters in the same instance of a template. To answer your question, though, there's no way to put in multiple positions. You'll just have to decide (using reliable sources) which is the player's primary position. – PeeJay 09:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How about adding a pos2 parameter? I could do that, but don't dare... ;) And honestly do not know if it's actually needed. --CiaPan (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The transcluded sub-templates {{fs start}}, {{fs mid}}, {{fs end}} are redirects to {{football squad start}}, {{football squad mid}}, {{football squad end}} respectively. Although the cost of a single redirect is trivial, in this case there are three transclusions within a parent template that's itself transcluded many thousands of times; the redirects have to be followed, often multiple times, whenever any of those thousands of pages is viewed. That adds up to a significant unnecessary overhead. I therefore suggest that the code is changed to invoke the relevant templates directly. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 21:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Redesign RfC

There was recently a TfD disscussion about merging {{Football squad player}} and {{Football squad player2}} which I closed with consensus to merge the templates. There were however no consensus on how to merge these templates with some redesign of the template being necessary to implement the TfD consensus. To achieve a consensus on the many points that have to be addressed here this discussion is split into several subsections each addressing a specific design decision. If anyone wants to add additional sections feel free to do so. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: Input to this discussion may have been affected by a non-neutral canvassing message. Comments received between 00:14 and 10:59 (UTC) on 17 February 2020 may have been as a result of this. Number 57 11:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the country's name be written beside the flag or not?

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

---

{{Football squad player2}} currently write out the country name while {{Football squad player}} doesn't

• Comment Related to this issue, should the country name be linked? This is generally regarded as WP:OVERLINK. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes But only if the flag is displayed. The flag is not needed. Ever but if it is present, it should not link to a nation and only to the national team if the player actually appeared on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• No However, if there is no definitive consensus on this, I would suggest a compromise where trigrammes are used to minimise the width taken. Number 57 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• No WDM10 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• No Just a flag with the name as a hoverlink is enough. --SuperJew (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - At least, not the country's full name. The flag should usually be enough to identify the country. If further investigation is required, the flag should be clickable to either the country's article or that of the national football association. – PeeJay 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• No - or use a trigramme as suggested by N57. GiantSnowman 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Have none of you paid attention to MOS:ACCESS? It is the whole reason we are here. You cannot have images without accompanying text. Ever. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

On the continental competition pages there is no text accompanying the flags on the team lists. Likewise, in the top scorers section of the World Cup pages, there is no label for the flag. So if the club and player names are the accompanying text there, then the player is accompanying text is this case. WDM10 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That too should be addressed. Feel free to point to additional violations that need to be corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: for access don't screen readers read out also the hovertext (that's what I seem to recall people saying in some of the discussions about it)? If so, having the name as well as hovertext seems like making access life harder. --SuperJew (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Screen readers read out alt text in place of the image, which can be omitted if the image is purely decorative (e.g. the name is there as well). How would anyone using a mobile device read the "hovertext"? --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

When I was testing websites for accessibility, the two screen readers I used could not be configured to read hovertext at all. They read out the alt behind the image. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and RexxS: What is the problem then with tweaking the flag template so that the alt text and hoverlink both have the country name, and then that solves the access problem? --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Good question, but not one for this template to resolve. If you're going over there to ask that, why not ask for a variant that allows the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code from being displaye (even when the full nation name is supplied)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I don't think this template is meant to resolve Wikipedia-wide access issues. If there's an access issue with hovertext of the flag template, take it up there and stop pushing that agenda on this template. I am not going over there to ask it, because I don't edit in access issues, and I have no idea what ISO you are talking about. --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to fix the other template, I'm suggesting that because it cannot be adequately fixed that we either offer an alternative here (by providing the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code next to the nation) or not use the flag at all (jingoism, superfluous information, etc.).

I'm not entirely sure why nationality for players is even relevant in the table. For some leagues, particularly those in Canada and the US, there is limitation to the number of "foreign" players, but those leagues calculate nationality differently than the way the FOOTY project does, so nationality always ends up in an conflict war. So my preference is not to include the flag at all, but no one even assumes that to be an option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: the problem is that anybody using a mouseless device, such as a mobile phone, i.e. over half of our readers, still wouldn't be able to see the alt text or the hoverlink, so still can't see the country name. If you want them to know the country name, you have to write the country name, or an acceptable abbreviation. --RexxS (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes Over 50% of pageviews are now from mobile devices. There is no such thing as a "hoverlink" on a mobile device. That means that readers who wish to know which country a player belongs to either has to learn 211 different flags, or they have to follow a link, download another page, and then return to the first page, often on a slow data link. Using a flag instead of the name of a country is simply sending a message to over 50% of our readers that "we don't care about you". --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • While it is interesting to note that most views these days come from mobile devices, we need to consider the types of views on those devices. I feel like most people who access the site on mobile are doing so to perform a quick check on something rather than doing it to perform extensive research. I think you're being a little hyperbolic to say that preferring desktop users means we "don't care" about mobile users, we just need to be conscious of how different people use the site on different devices. – PeeJay 07:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

    If there are different preferences for desktop and mobile it's possible to have two different layouts depending on skin. I'm not sure if it has been done before, but it's certainly possible in the same way it's possible to hide navboxes on mobile. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

    @PeeJay2K3: It's wrong to make assumptions about how how the mobile site is used especially based on your hunch. A lot of the world only has access via cellular devices. If we make life difficult for our mobile readers thoughtlessly or deliberately, it's a certain message that we don't care about them

@Trialpears: Skins change css, which of course can hide content. However I do not believe there is way to use css to turn two inner tables which are cells in the same row of an outer table into a single-column layout. If you claim otherwise, knock up a demo and show us. There's a lot of pie-in-the-sky speculating in this debate that amounts top a refusal to face accessibility issues. Show an accessible two column layout before claiming that it's a solution. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, see my sandbox where I have made a version of Arsenal F.C.'s rooster that use {{Football squad player}} when viewed in the vector skin and {{Football squad player2}} when viewed on mobile. There should be a separate class here and not just abusing other classes, but it shows the basic idea. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears: So your solution is effectively to use the two existing templates/layouts: one for desktop and one for mobile. You do realise that this whole discussion was created because of a TfD decision to merge the two templates: ("There is a consensus to merge the templates to use a consistent design"? --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: consistent between clubs, not between devices. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: That's not what the close said. And I don't see anywhere in the TfD discussion that anybody suggested continuing to use two templates. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: @Trialpears isn’t suggesting to keep both templates, but to merge both into one that displays differently based on the device one is viewing it from. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Why not have one template that displays correctly, with respect to MOS:ACCESS and platform of browser, regardless of the platform of browser? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: You need to let Trialpears speak for themselves. Did you examine the wikitext in his sandbox solution? Thought not. He has both templates in there with css to hide one or the other depending on whether you view using the default desktop or mobile skin. I use monobook, so I see both. It could be improved by using a container template along with TemplateStyles to create custom hide/show classes, but honestly, using two different templates and switching them is a kludge, not a solution. You really need to write properly accessible, responsive templates from the start. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

RexxS If something like this were to be used it would be templated and not use all this div mess in articles creating one template that can have different layout depending on device. It could probably be made workable with screen readers by having only the one column version read by screen readers, but ultimately I agree with RexxS; you really need to write this from scratch. My demo was just intended to show that it's definitely possible to make it device dependent, not a serious suggestion for a solution. For the close question I was not referring to consistency between devices, that wasn't discussed at TfD, just the consensus that we shouldn't have two templates doing the same thing or consistency between articles. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes - very surprised there are admins in this discussions that just dismiss the MoS (this comment is true for other sections). Whether or not the flag is needed is a different issue, but the MoS is clear that if you use it, you need to use it with text.
• Sort of – The flag alone is not sufficient, it's not reasonable to expect an average reader to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of world flags, nor to have the visual acuity to distinguish between the various defaced Blue Ensigns that are in use. Also MOS:ACCIM states that in general images should have some kind of caption. That being said however, writing the full name of a country significantly increases the width of the table (which is bad news for viewing on mobile devices) and the variation in lengths of country names has the potential to make things look quite messy. I think using the FIFA country code trigramme, as suggested above, is a reasonable compromise here. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 08:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gasheadsteve: Seriously when was the last time you saw a soccer player on a squad listing whose FIFA nationality is a UK Overseas Territory? (except Bermuda and Gibraltar which are more frequent, but they use other flags anyway so it's beside the point) --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: To be fair, they do pop up from time to time (e.g. Leek Town F.C.#Current squad). Don't forget that Australia and New Zealand use Blue Ensigns as well, and people frequently get those muddled up. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 09:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gasheadsteve: Point is they seem rare and quite silly to base a guideline off of the rare cases. --SuperJew (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per MoS. If the nationality is important enough to justify the presence of a flag, then those of us who don't recognise every flag, or who are colour-blind, or use a device without hover capability, shouldn't have to fiddle about hovering or going off to another page to access this important information when using text is a simple and straightforward alternative. Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Struway2: I don't think importance has to be binary as in important or not important. Importancy is more on a scale. Therefore, I would say nationality is important enough to include in the squad list (affects visa etc. in leagues which limit foreigners), but not the most important thing on the squad list, so shouldn't be IMO given too much space. --SuperJew (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes per MoS. ....dont make readers hunt for meaning.--Moxy 🍁 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• No , as stated above. P0g0.try (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes though I would show ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code instead of full country name as suggested above, purely because of design issues. Also I think that it would be good idea to have an option in template to exclude nationality column altogether. Also maybe have those flags / country codes link to the national team page instead of country page? Though that would not apply to the majority of players who never had their international caps. Nightfall87 (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • National team page? This templates are used on women's teams such as Olympique Lyonnais Féminin and FC Bayern Munich (women), and there are players who have only played for a U-23, U-21 or lower-level national team, and some have never represented their nation in international play. This is another example of editors not thinking about those who are not the biggest names in the sport. And finally, linking is not required at all as it violates WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Not all readers can identify a player's country just by seeing the flag only. Idealigic (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Isn't it fortunate, then, that flags can be linked? – PeeJay 14:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Isn't it fortunate that there's no consensus as to what it should be linked? The nation would be a clear violation of WP:OVERLINK, but you've shown that don't care about community consensus so that doesn't motivate you. The senior men's national team would not make sense as not all players have represented the nation at that level and makes a mockery of the women's team. I suppose it could be linked to the national association, but that may not make any sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per MoS. ....I mostly use mobile, and a significant number of people do, Trigram is OK by me, but something, flags are often two small to distinguish between some. and link to Nat football team, thats what is relevantClubOranje^T 09:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes per RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Wouldn't this fall under MOS:ICON as opposed to MOS:ACCESS? WDM10 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  There's no contradiction between the two. MOS:ICON has a section titled "Accompany flags with country names" and MOS:ACCESS states "images should include a caption ... The caption should concisely describe the meaning of the image and the essential information it is trying to convey." The essential information a flag is trying to convey is the name of the country. --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I seem to have glossed over the part relating to using the name and flag first and then just the flag next. I could see something like {{flagathlete}} working. WDM10 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've never seen flagathlete, but it looks like it has the country name with hovertext. The problem with hovertext is that it's useless to mobile/touch users who generally can't hover; they can only click in a location. The other problem is that most athletes have never represented a nation—they are only citizens of that nation—and that seems to be what this if for. There might also be a sort issue. It's a good start though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Wouldn't the three letter code be enough however? Also the nation can just be their FIFA recognised nation like it is now. WDM10 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  I believe that ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 is the standard. For most nations, yes. There are a few that are confusing for the initiated. What are like DEU and ESP? And sometimes the first three letters of the nation are used, like NIC is Nicaragua, but not always: NER Niger, NGA Nigeria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Shouldn't FIFA acronyms be used considering this is football or are they entirely separate cases? WDM10 (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  If we're incorporating that template, it might be possible; if we're simply basing a replacement template on the principles of that template, then it makes sense to do that. Is there a definitive list of FIFA nation acronyms? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  This page has all the codes. WDM10 (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Here I've created something that could potentially be used. WDM10 (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks. I see how you achieved that as well, it's {[tl|flagathlete}} inside a table. I tested with it in-place and made it sortable. It does sort by name, but does so by given name not family name. At least it's not by nation (which was my initial fear). I know that some will not like one column either. But it seems you were showing a proof-of-concept. Side note: incorrect application of MOS:ITALIC and MOS:CAPS: the parenthetical terms need neither. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've changed it up a slight bit just fixing the MOS issues. Where can I find yours? WDM10 (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't make a copy, I edited yours but didn't save it. It was just a test. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. We need no country names or flags, just player names. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the template display the table in one or two columns?

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

---

{{Football squad player}} currently use two while {{Football squad player2}} use one

• Two columns or responsive, as it's easier and more practical to view all the players in one single screen, without having to scroll up and down to compare between players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: what sorts of comparisons are you making between players in the roster? Understanding this would be helpful in designing the new roster template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I might want to compare data in Wikipedia with data from another website (say, the club’s official player list on their website). Having to go up and down to see players in specific positions is problematic. I might want to see all foreign players in one single screen, making it clear how many quota players there are in the club directly. I might want to see how many forwards there are in the club, or how many midfielders, without having to scroll up and down. These are just a few examples. Anyway, I’m in favour of having 2 columns for PC, and 1 for mobile. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Responsive Forcing a width has already been demonstrated as problematic. By removing the table formatting and making the formatting flow, mobile devices can be accommodated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds like the optimal solution. I'm a bit uncertain about the implementation though. There is no way for a template or module to directly know the screen size but it may be a possibility in css, but I don't know since I'm not very well versed in css. I know it's possible to make it skin dependent so it displays as single column for mobile users and double column for desktop. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  With tables, it's difficult, and so by avoiding tables we could lose the ability to sort. With that said, responsive is done with {{reflist}} and can be applied to lists using {{div col}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Two columns Number 57 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Two columns WDM10 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Two columns so the whole squad can easily be seen without scrolling, and also leaves less dead whitespace. --SuperJew (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Two - Football squads can be quite big, so it makes sense to be efficient with the amount of space we have available. – PeeJay 17:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Two columns as above. GiantSnowman 17:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Responsive or One whichever you find possible. Two columns make the table too wide to see on my mobile phone without horizontal scrolling. We should never be delivering content that requires a reader to scroll horizontally; it's utterly amateurish web design. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  @RexxS: having to scroll vertically to see the full list is annoying as well. The mobile website is adapted as it is to the mobile (with the "m." prefix) - so it should adapt two columns properly, not that we have to change the way we format things on all squad listings. --SuperJew (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

  @SuperJew: Everyone using webpages, wordprocessors, pdf readers, etc. is accustomed to scrolling vertically. So no, it's not annoying because as you read down you move downwards with the scrolling each page. Contrast that with having to horizontally scroll back-and-forth every line to read the end of the line, which no sensible UX designer would allow. The mobile website does not adapt a layout that is made of two individual tables side-by-side as cells in an outer table, which is what the current template delivers. You only have to look at the example in the template documentation on a mobile phone to see the horizontal scrolling. Why not try it before proclaiming what it should do? You'll soon see that you have to change the way you format squad listings, because there is no magical technical solution to rescue content from the old-fashioned, inaccessible idea of using tables to create format – other than getting rid of it. The onus is on the editors creating templates to ensure that they behave well when viewed on mobile, and the current template with tables hard-coded in doesn't do that. --RexxS (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• One (or responsive if possible). Vertical scrolling is always better than horizontal scrolling, especially as on desktop scrolling a non-issue and on mobile vertical is the standard. --Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Responsive or One. So long as the implementation can be parsed correctly by screen readers, and doesn't involve horizontal scrolling. Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Responsive or Two. especially if we stick to showing only # / position / country / name set of data. Showing only those 4 columns in single row while listing 30+ players in first team squad, and 6/7 reserve players below that, and 15+ more players on loan below that would create tons of non used space on large screens. For example take a look at the number of players being listed on Chelsea or Red Star roster. Nightfall87 (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• One column I find it more useful and easier to decipher in a single column. Also ....I mostly use mobile, as do a significant number of people and most mobile viewing is portrait. allows me to turn screen to landscape and get it slightly bigger to read with my ageing eyes ClubOranje^T 09:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Two columns Idealigic (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Responsive or One per RexxS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the nation be displayed after the number or in the last row?

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

---

{{Football squad player}} currently displays it after the number while {{Football squad player2}} displays it in the last row

• Comment, last row if we decide to show the full name for the nation, after the number if we don't show the name (basically, the way, respectively, Fs player2 and Fs player are set out to date). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Before the name --SuperJew (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• After the number - I like how the flag currently breaks up two items of text (the number and the position). This isn't such an issue with the position and the name, since the name is easily identifiable as such without needing to be set apart from the other info in the table. – PeeJay 17:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• You probably mean "column" and not "row". Also, regardless of the position {{Football squad player}} is not setup correctly as the "nation" column header is missing. A table should not have empty cells, especially not in the header. While it might be confusing somewhat for people who can actually see the table, for those that use a screen reader, it will just be much harder to understand.
• After the number - Nightfall87 (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Last Column I just prefer that. more important to me to see number and name together. When I need the country I can look right, or scroll over if need be on a mobile, but thats better than having to scroll to see the players surname ClubOranje^T 09:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Should abbreviations be used for the position or not?

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

---

{{Football squad player}} currently uses abbreviated versions while {{Football squad player2}} uses the full titles

• Comment, this really depends on how the template looks after all else has been decided. If having full titles for the positions, for example in a two column version, forces the rows to have double the width, then I would rather have abbreviations. If, instead, having full or abbreviated versions doesn't change the way the template is displayed, then full would be preferred. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• No Players are often placed in multiple positions. Players who are listed as midfielders on the official roster have been used as defenders on occasion and other midfielders as forwards. Some editors want a more specific "striker" or "winger" rather than a generic "forward" or "midfielder" and the various titles for defenders is similarly long. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It'll be unnecessarily wide and have full words repeated numerous times. Number 57 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes The words will be unnecessarily long and the abbreviations are linked if anybody is unaware of the meanings. WDM10 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes if including positions at all. Since positions are versatile (apart from GK), it can usually not be displayed properly in one description. --SuperJew (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Also, I have no problem with including positions. Most reliable sources will divide squad lists into positional categories, usually going for the basic "Goalkeeper/Defender/Midfielder/Forward" categories. – PeeJay 17:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - long established with no problems. GiantSnowman 18:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• I'm leaning to on "No" here, but would like to see the final table first. If the table width isn't too big, I don't see any issues with using the full text.
• Yes - Nightfall87 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes if including positions at all. Having the same word written out in full a dozen times seems unnecessary. As a total football advocate I disagree with having positions as they are flexible, particularly for some players who may be wingbacks, wingers or backs, holding midfielder or centre back. all a bit arbitrary ClubOranje^T 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Regardless of your philosophy on total football, players' positions are usually verifiable by reliable sources and should probably be included, but only to the extent of GK/DF/MF/FW. – PeeJay 10:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes It is necessary, so that the words will be shortened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idealigic (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Only necessary if the unnecessary two-column template is used. If one column is used, it's not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

What should be the default background color for the table?

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

---

{{Football squad start}} currently uses #AAD0FF blue while {{Football squad start2}} uses the MediaWiki default

• MediaWiki default as there's a reason for the default across the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This appears to be about the squadlist header rather than the background of the table (which is transparent). This isn't really a big deal in the scheme of things – a more major difference between the versions is whether the table should have gridlines (Football squad start2) or be completely transparent (Football squad start). I'd prefer the latter. Cheers, Number 57 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• The blue color seems to pass AAA from a site I checked, so that's fine. --Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• MediaWiki default - with option to specify font and background color Nightfall87 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Should the table have gridlines or not?

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

---

{{Football squad start2}} uses gridlines, while {{Football squad start}} doesn't

• No gridlines Number 57 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Gridlines: I personally am in favor of gridlines as it makes it easier to scan rows. --Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• No gridlines Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• No gridlines. GiantSnowman 08:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• No gridlines just personal preference. As a side note, if the data is going to be left justified, the header title should too. Particularly with flexibly wide tables. Jens Lehmann's name doesn't even fall under the title of the column on my device in that columnless example. ClubOranje^T 09:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Implementing these changes

To implement the requirement of the country being linked (as per the outcome above), a few editors agreed that using the trigramme would be an acceptable compromise. To that end, I've created {{FIFA Country codes}}, which will create a trigramme that links to the Football Associations of each nation. This works for both country names and trigramme entries, and I've trialled it at the sandbox. What do people think? Number 57 16:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I would rather see the short name of the country. If space is an issue, drop the flag icon. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

I think full country names would make the tables a bit of mess due to the difference in length of names and the lack of gridlines (which was agreed above). The advantage of trigrammes is that they are all about the same length, so would make for a more consistent column. Number 57 22:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Trigrammes are potentially obscure. We should not assume that anyone reading a football article (especially a domestic football article) is familiar with FIFA codes, anymore than we should assume they are familiar with flags. I am open to the idea that the nationality column could be optional, but if it's there it should be easy to understand. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 22:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC).

I've made an adjustment to the sandbox to use {{fba}} for the nationality column (should trigrammes be used), which is more flexible by using the flag template system (therefore utilising the titles in Category:Country data redirects). This also allows for flag variants to be used. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Where is the base data (the association names) for that template? If we're going to use it, it needs to be clear to editors where to make changes if and when a country's association is renamed (I tried to trace it through the coding, but couldn't work out where it was pulling the data from). Cheers, Number 57 10:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: It's listed on the first line of the documentation, the data is at Template:Fba/list. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. No idea how I missed that... Number 57 15:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Test in sandbox

Please check out Template:Football_squad_player/sandbox for a test with default wikitable layout. Its optional to use {{Football squad mid}}. If using {{Football squad mid}}, sorting will only work in the column. If the browser windows is to small fit both columns it will move it below. Tholme (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tholme: Is it possible to also see a version without the gridlines? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499:Please check out Template:Football squad player/testcases for example with no grid. Tholme (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the nationality to between the squad number and the player's name. I think the additional text after player names (such as loan status etc) makes it awkward to have any columns after the player name, as it creates a large whitespace for much of the table. However, I wasn't sure how to do the coding that excludes the column heading if no nation is added.

Separately, can we also make the squad numbers column optional, as many leagues do not have them. Cheers, Number 57 21:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The table has problems on mobile or narrow browsers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK problems aside. Also, having two tables, side-by-side means you cannot spot the full roster, only one side or the other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the problems on mobile? I just had a look at the testcases page on my phone and it looks fine (even the existing table which still is side-by-side) fits to the width of the screen, although it's bunched up a lot); the responsive table doesn't have two side-by-side (are you looking at the right bit of the testcases page? The bit under the headings "Sandbox" and "Sandbox no grid" are what the proposed version looks like). Number 57 10:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on which mobile. On narrow screens, you have the second table draw below the first rather than beside it and you end up with a second heading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's idea, of it being responsive. It shows the two tables side by side on PC, while one above the other on mobile. If, somehow, there were a way to "remove" the {{Fs mid}} effect during mobile (effectively merging the two tables into one), it would be perfect. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: Also, regarding the large whitespace caused by the extra text (e.g. loan), the best thing to do is to remove the "until 30 June 2020", which is unnecessary and takes up too much space. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

One last comment: the tooltip for the positions is an overkill as, on mobile, it doesn't work, while on PC, hovering over the text already shows the article it's linked to. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at the references section of a major team, then narrow the window. As the page narrows, the contents reform. The heading remains the same. If this were a truly responsive table, it would become a single table, not a second one. "Responsive" is not working so single column should be used instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be a bit too defeatist. All we need to do is figure a way to "disable" the effects of {{Fs mid}} on the mobile version, and we're good to go. Also, the consensus we reached was: "Responsive (if possible) or two (if not)." Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You're equating being a realist with being a defeatist? Odd.

Members of the football project wanted a multiple columns. The accessibility project wants this to work for people who have accessibility issues. The multiple, separate tables, each with its own heading would be an unmitigated disaster for them. Don't put too much effort into tables as they are not appropriate and a different approach should be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As Nehme1499 says, the RfC (which was open to all editors and was not only commented on by football editors) was closed above with the conclusion to use responsive tables if possible, or two columns if not. If you don't like the two columns outcome, it's in your interests to make the responsive table work.

@Nehme1499: The whitespace isn't an issue now; the table just looked very odd when the flags had been moved to the right of the players' names. Number 57 11:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Was it only commented on by football project members? I can say for certain I'm not and I don't think RexxS is, so please check your facts. It's going to be a problem for the accessibility project. If you can't make two separate tables work it is not in my interest at all to make it work as 1) I'm not a coder and 2) there's a viable alternative: one table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You're the only one talking on behalf of a community you aren't a part of (the accessibility project). If they have a problem with the current solution, they should be the ones to express their thoughts. Also, I really don't see how having two tables (one on top of the other) on mobile is that horrible. How does it violate accessibility? It is working, all we need to do (and again, I've repeated this three times) is to fix the {{Fs mid}} issue. If it can't be fixed, it's still a good compromise. I would much rather have 2 tables side-by-side on PC and 2 tables (one on top of the other) on mobile, than one table on all devices. The PC needs two tables separated by fs mid, as there is way too much unutilized space to the right. The mobile just needs not to have the tables side by side, which, for now, we have accomplished. The fact that a second "header" appears on the mobile version isn't that big of a deal, and I'm sure its fixable. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Walter, you've misread what I said – I said it was "not only commented on by football editors". Anyway, I've asked a template code expert to have a look at it. Number 57 21:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In this case, there are limitations on how responsive an HTML table can be. The responsive columns in a reference section is a different matter, not at all comparable to tables. It is possible to make the second (right) table/column "collapse" below the first, but there is no way for the tables to responsively merge into one with the duplicate headings removed (this would require more advanced coding that could not be implemented here). I do not know if a Lua module could provide a different output depending on the size of the screen, but this would not be truly responsive either. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Are you able to resolve the issue whereby if one player does not have his nationality included, that cell collapses and the player's name moves across (compare the location of Gerard Pique in the tables here. I suspect this is an issue with {{football squad player/sandbox}}. Cheers, Number 57 23:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Try adding a nonbreaking space if |nat= is blank, something like:

• | {{#if:{{{nat|}}}| style="padding-right:15px;"{{!}} {{fba|{{{nat}}}|variant={{{natvar|}}}|name=code}} |   }}

--RexxS (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: Was there an intent to optionally not have a nationality column for some articles? If so, then to solve the issue you mentioned, there would have to be a way to pass the information that the column does not exist on a given page, for example |nat=n or |nonat=y (which would need to be present in each instance of {{fs player}}). Or another template could be created, say {{Football squad player no nationality}}, to call this template while passing the parameter |nonat=y. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: The disappearing cell was introduced by Tholme when they edited it, but I don't think it needs to disappear, and it sounds like it is going to be difficult to make it work if it does (so I think your suggestion of a separate template for no nationality is best, if it's actually needed). I've edited it myself to make sure the nationality column always appears, but I couldn't do it using the {{fba}} template you added. Cheers, Number 57 10:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) A Lua module can't do that sort of job with the current MediaWiki software because it runs server-side and the server code it runs inside doesn't know how big your screen is. Even if it did, we'd have no ability to do caching of the html served and everything would be running a lot slower. You could use client-side JavaScript to recompose two adjacent tables into one, but that would require everybody to run the JavaScript. Changing MediaWiki:Common.js is a long process starting with creating the code and then getting consensus at Village Pump. That assumes that everybody's mobile platform runs the JavaScript, of course. The solution you presently have is simply to have two separate tables (not two "columns"), regardless of where they are placed on the display. Each of them is going to need a unique caption, so perhaps some thought needs to be put into that as well. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I was referring to the original structure, where two separate tables are placed within the columns of an outer table. This seems to have changed in the sandbox, though having an outer table would make a caption easier. And yeah, JavaScript is not a realistic option for such an issue. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Accessibility

Seeing as Walter mentioned it... One major reason the {{fs player2}} family of templates was created in the first place, and why some club pages still use them, is because the underlying html of the {{fs player}} templates was unable to be parsed correctly by screen readers, so people who needed to use such devices couldn't read the squad lists properly. Do (any of) the proposed implementation(s) address this problem? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding @Tholme:. Struway2 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I belive the proposed implementations in the sandbox solves these problems. Tholme (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It addresses the flags, not the repeat linking but the over linking, not the layout issues. You now have two separate tables and this is going to be a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeat linking is not necessarily a problem in tables. And football squad has always been in two tables (when fs mid has used, which has the effect of creating a second table alongside the first) – this is not a fundamental change to how it functions – the only change is to make it possible to display the second below the first.

From my knowledge of templates, I don't believe the repeat linking can be resolved while squadlists are created using separate fs player templates, as the separate templates cannot see what a previous template is doing. It might be possible to do it if a single squadlist template was created, but this would involve replacing how it is coded on every page it's used.

Anyway, in the meantime, are people happy with implementing the current sandbox version, which at ticks off one outcome and does the best job anyone's been able to manage so far with the other? Number 57 19:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's the point: they have not always been in two tables. MLS articles, Atlanta United FC#Roster for example, use a correct single-column table. Even the current accessibility challenged version is a single table. See Chelsea F.C.#Squad for example. People are not happy with implementing the current sandbox version. Two columns, while space saving, is not going to work. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Who are these people who aren't happy with the sandbox version being implemented? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The outcome of the discussion above was to have a responsive table (if possible) or two columns if not. If you're not happy with the responsiveness of the sandbox version, then for now you're going to have to accept the two columns version. Number 57 21:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Govvy made the case, in a different discussion, that MOS:FLAGS doesn't apply to tables. Regardless of that, I don't think the positions need a tooltip, given that it doesn't work on mobile, and on PC you can just hover over the linked positions and it will show you the article it refers to. Other than that, it seems good to go. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) Football squad being hacked into two tables is what caused the problem for screen reader users. Nothing to do with flags, nothing to do with repeat linking. That's the main reason why the alternative single-column layout was created, and if that problem does still remain unsolved, then unfortunately there's still a need for the alternative version to exist. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Those who use screen readers. See MOS:ACCESS Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what's going on exactly, what type of screen readers do people have a problem with? Is it the speech recognition system? Because the current version of my speech reader doesn't actually tell you what nationality a player is in the default football squad player template. Govvy (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I installed one (a Chrome Extension) yesterday to check what the complaints were, and it reads out the nationality for the default template. However, I am wondering what exactly the issue is with the two-column format as it read out the squadlist fine (from my perspective). The only thing I noticed was that it read out the second header. Is this the problem that people have with it? Number 57 09:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The "problem" is that when it's two columns, the headings get read twice and so there is no "middle". It is better than the current format as it's all one big table that is read left-to-right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I was actually looking at an article in the current format. The screen reader read it out the correct order and didn't jump from one side of the table to the other until it got to the bottom of the first column of players. Number 57 17:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've got a user of a a series of screen readers in ACCESS project that disagrees with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a case of disagreeing – the screen reader I installed (ChromeVox Classic) read it as I described. Perhaps the question is whether all screen readers behave the same way. Can you ping that editor so they can join the discussion? Number 57 20:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The new template works with as many columns as you want, if you only want one column, then just skip using {{Football squad mid}}. Tholme (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That does not solve the problem of consistency across articles then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I've managed to create a responsive table (which doesn't include splitting a table into two separate ones) here. The impact of fs mid is not to create a separate table alongside the first, but instead just colours a normal row (which you have to place in the correct place in the list to get it to display at the top of the second column like a header). The list remains a single table but splits midway through as it uses {{div col}}. For screenreaders, this should appear as a single table, just as lists split by div col read out as a single list. I am trying to work out whether div col allows for genuine headers that would only repeat if the table splits in two (currently when the table displays in a single column with a second header added, the second header appears midway through the list). However, having a second heading might not be such a terrible outcome, as it will only appear midway through a table when a list is forced into a single column on a narrow screen, so can act as a reminder heading for long squadlists. Still I definitely would like to be able to force the columns closer together on wide screens. If anyone is able to help, please have a go. Cheers, Number 57 21:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It displays in a two columns in Chrome when the canvas is around 1500 pixels wide. When I make it smaller, it's a single column, but the heading redraws halfway down the page. In Firefox, it is always a single column and Chrome goes to three columns when it's just a bit wider than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed the code so that this example now will show maximum two columns, and not three or more if the canvas is bigger than ca. 1600px. Tholme (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks. Still a single column in Firefox at all resolutions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has stagnated for over a month. Has everything been agreed on or is there something else we need to discuss? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there is, yes. It's not working as a collection of tables. Another approach should be tried instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: If there is consensus from editors that any of the proposals discussed are satisfactory, they can be implemented. I would suggest in the absence of anyone else stepping in to help design a new, improved template (which perhaps could be done via a lua module, which is well beyond my capabilities), the version in the sandbox should be implemented as it at least introduces the country name, which was an outcome of the RfC. Number 57 10:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not ask at MOS:ACCESS as they will give you feedback on accessibility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You and others have already given feedback here and you have previously requested input from there on several occasions, so I'm not sure what yet another request would do right now (unless it's some kind of delaying tactic?). The sandbox version does not appear to introduce any new issues but does at least introduce some of the changes required by the RfC outcome. I suggest we implement it as a first step. If anyone knows any editors who are good with modules, then we can ask them for help for a longer-term solution. Number 57 19:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think @Frietjes is pretty good with templates. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My feedback is from a web testing position. ACCESS will give you accessibility feedback. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Implementation

Any news? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems no-one is willing to help try and create a version that ticks every box. In the meantime, I suggest we adopt the improvements that at least tick some of them (i.e. adding the country codes). Number 57 22:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as we merge this template with {{Football squad player2}}, I'm fine. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What does "merge with Football squad player2" even mean? It's closer to meeting ACCESS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

By merge I mean that both templates become the same template. We shouldn't have separate templates for the same usage. By "merge with Fs player2" I don't mean that we should be looking for a solution closer to Fs player, rather that one template becomes a redirect to the other. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand it now. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Is anyone here capable of merging the two templates, adopting the sandbox version? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented the sandbox version in the original fs squad template, so the country trigramme now displays, plus the colour agreed at the RfC has been implemented. Number 57 16:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, just seen the merger, noticed a lot of Irish players are listed under the nationality 'IRE' for Republic of Ireland under the old template. This is linking to the Irish Football Association (Northern Irish football association) and the flag is the Saint Patrick's Saltire. Is there a way of fixing it or do all Irish players now have to be corrected to IRL. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: Basically, prior to these changes, "IRE" used to display the same result as "IRL"? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Correct, Previously "IRE" linked the same as "IRL", whereas now "IRE" links the same as "NIR" but with the old-flag of Northern Ireland (Saint Patrick's Saltire). Basically "IRE" is now linking to Northern Ireland football association instead of Republic of Ireland. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57: Do you know how to fix this? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, but S.A. Julio should, as he wrote the code used for that element. However, I suspect it may be the case that the articles have to be fixed (as they are using the wrong trigramme). It should be possible to identify which articles are using it via a tracer. Number 57 20:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just doing a quick review via AWB of all pages that link to Irish Football Association to see if any have nat=IRE and fixing them. Number 57 20:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice, good work! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, think it's mostly sorted now. Around 520 articles were using IRE instead of IRL and have been fixed. There may be some still out there, but I can't find them with AWB. Number 57 22:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, IRL is the official country code used by FIFA. When using {{fb}}, IRE/EIR is used to link to the Ireland national football team (1882–1950) under the Irish Football Association, so for consistency I maintained this in {{fba}}. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternative text on ENG

At the moment when you hover over it, it just says The Football Association Can we change that to the The English Football Association? Govvy (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is one for S.A. Julio. However, it may not be possible to amend, as it's a general Wikipedia feature that shows the title of the article that the link is to. Number 57 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The solution would be linking the redirect which I don't see any problem with. --Trialpears (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure it's a good idea, as this will mean there are thousands of links pointing to a redirect. Number 57 11:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you not program the link to not point like an element |pointing=no or something? Govvy (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Why should it point to "The English Football Association"? There is no such organisation. We may not like the arrogance of them referring to themselves as The Football Association, but that's what they're called. – PeeJay 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)