Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Club seasons/Contra-Proposal

Optional

Why is the "Overview" section optional? Surely that should be the crux of the article? - PeeJay 12:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about "the crux of the article", but I have to agree with you that overview shouldn't be optional. But, based on several current club season articles, I don't expect editors will jump on it and write long overviews, I guess overviews will be nice but short. I'm changing that. Furthermore, events, I believe should be list only if there is important events, so, I'm not sure if all teams will have important event to be list in a season. Because that I set a optional. Regards. --ClaudioMB 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that events should be optional. However, where included, the events that should be included are progression/elimination from a cup competition, notable league matches and a short comment on any transfers. - PeeJay 14:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably already know, I not good with overviews or events. So, I saw some other editors using, like Leeds_United_A.F.C._2007-08_season#Events and Bristol_Rovers_F.C._season_2007-08#Chronological_list_of_events. The only improvement I can see, is to use Wikipedia date ([[5 September]]). I think we should invite all editors that are using events to discuss the event section. With their participation, they will eventually accept the MoS.--ClaudioMB 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competitions

I set as optional because I saw some articles not include it. But, I wondering if make sense I season article do not show the competitions the club is in. I think we could call those articles that are not use it to discuss it.--ClaudioMB 16:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

In my opinion it is better to put the club based information before the player information, because the club is the central topic. I would also merge the Competitions and Matches sections to have that information in one place. CRwikiCA talk 09:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really should look at the year and not just the date... CRwikiCA talk 09:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]