Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/League season/Table conversion

Set-up

After the recent consensus at WT:FOOTY to convert the football tables to use Module:Sports table, some people suggested to create a page to keep track of progress. The goal is only to convert active and future competitions, I tried to include most in the overview, but I have missed some. If you spot some omission add what needs to be added. CRwikiCA talk 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brudder Andrusha, Jkudlick, Qed237, and Equineducklings: You have indicated you wanted to convert specific articles, or you have converted some articles already. This page might be of interest to you and to indicate in the tables which league(s) you are (planning on) working on. Obviously feel free to invite more people to join the effort. CRwikiCA talk 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Reckless182, Dr. Vicodine, Number 57, and Koppapa: You have actively participated in the discussion at WT:FOOTY and might be interested in joining the conversion effort or watchlisting this page to monitor the progress. CRwikiCA talk 20:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CRwikiCA: how are we supposed to mark it?: I saw one one place you added your signature and on one place you wrote only "Done". Are we supposed to use our names to let editors know who does what? Using three tildes (instead of regualar four) gives signature without time, is that a good way or should time be added? For example "Planned, Qed237 (talk)". QED237 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding planned to it is also a good idea. I think it's worth adding time, so people know when a certain topic was started in case they want to take over after a long period of inactivity. CRwikiCA talk 20:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. And I guess for club comp in nations it is not only league but also cups (for those with tables)? Should we have a separate column for that or is it included? Info about that on top of page would be good. QED237 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much to include it in separate rows, so it would be up to the person to go through it or state what would still be missing. Ideally we would get the regular contributors to these articles on board to do "their" country. CRwikiCA talk 21:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, it is just that the domestic cups is often forgotten, especially since some just have elimination and no group stage. QED237 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For competitions which are knockout only (Copa Sudamericana, etc.), should they be marked as done? For seasons that are soon to finish (within the next month), should we wait until the new season starts to make the change? Equineducklings (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the domestic cup discussion, I don't think a country should be marked as done unless the most important domestic cup is also accounted for. For example, in Europe, the most important cup would be the cup which qualifies a team to the Europa League. Equineducklings (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that knockout-only competitions such as Copa Sudamerica and Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup should be marked as complete if they are on the table, or should be left off the table altogether unless the format changes to a group or league format. For seasons which are almost complete (only a few weeks left), I think they may be best left as they are at this time. I also agree that a nation should not be marked as complete unless its most important domestic cup is complete. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the statements above, a nation should only be marked as completed when cups with group play are converted as well. When there is only a few weeks left in the season for a country, it might be good to opt to convert the upcoming season instead to save on some work. CRwikiCA talk 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Match notes

Upon converting the European qualifiers I realized the notes needed for UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group I, so I extended the note options to include match notes as in that example. I updated the modules documentation accordingly. CRwikiCA talk 17:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long delays

Whilst looking through some of the CONCACAF and CONMEBOL tournaments to see what needed updating, I came to the realization that a number of tournaments will not be contested again until 2017 or 2018. In such cases, should the most recent tournaments be updated with the module to provide a baseline for the next edition of the tournament? -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 20:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with updating completed tournaments, if you have the time to convert those, feel free to do so. CRwikiCA talk 21:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilco. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 21:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this as well. For example, I looked at the Copa Centroamericana. The 2014 version recently finished. Someone created articles for 2016 and 2017 including tables and football boxes, both of which are hidden. I'm not sure what is the best option in a situation like that. I just noticed the 2015 Copa Libertadores has also been created with all the tables hidden. Equineducklings (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empty tables are relatively easy to replace, because you can just use the same one over and over again. I didn't realize that was happening, because creating articles two edition ahead is not really necessary. CRwikiCA talk 18:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women's?

For big tournaments there is both men and women separated (like Women olympics and mens olympics). How about the nation list, is it only mens or does it mean we must also update womens table in that country? For example in Sweden there is Allsvenskan, Superettan, Division 1, Division 2 and so on, but also womens league like Damallsvenskan. Same in England as I currently work on. QED237 (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on updating men's and women's league tables in USA and Canada, as well as any other nations I help update. I see no reason not to do so. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at doing the NWSL, but didn't want to work on it at the same time as you. Are you okay with me doing that one to save you some work? Since it's a league that normally uses templates, I guess documentation needs to be done too. Although I have created many tables, I don't have experience with documentation, so I may need advice or help with that. Equineducklings (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I need to write documentation for MLS & NASL templates, so I'll help you out with that. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depth

Currently working on English leagues and I wonder a bit how "far down" I should do this conversion. First I thought it was only top 4 tiers as they are the only listed s fully proffessional, but now I saw top 5 is in template (okay I do tier 5 also) I thought. Then I saw tier 6 and tier 7 has table (two different leagues in tier 7) called Conference Premier, Conference North and Conference South. There are probably more leagues. How far down? All the way?. By the way I am working on England and can have it done soon, but thought it is best to wait to implement until after weekend so I dont update in middle of matches. So I am almost ready but I wait for a while. QED237 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this earlier today when I saw you had marked England because I thought it would be way too much work. There are tables consistently through level 10, which probably has more to do with how many editors there are in England than anything else. After level 10, it's hit-and-miss, but there are tables in lower levels as well. I would say it should be done through the national leagues (level 5), and hopefully those who work on the lower levels will change the tables on there own. However, level 6 tables are on the same page as 5, so the stopping point could be the 4th or 6th level. Maybe someone has a better idea? Equineducklings (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA and Canada list leagues down to tiers 4 and 5 on the "pyramid" articles, so those are what I will do, provided I can find appropriate information. I think professional and semi-pro leagues should suffice for the time being, lest we become "entangled in the weeds" trying to update articles for every amateur league that may exist. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably stop at level 6 in England, which means 7 tables and approx 150 teams. For example Football in England list top 6 levels in the infobox even if only top 4 is fully proffesional (many teams in level 5 and 6 are also fully pro). Then it is enough, this since all the club seson articles in top 5 must also be updated (approx 110 articles) to use this new module correctly since before it was template with parameter team and now it is showteam so all those 110 articles needs updating as well. Updating the templates to this new format is a lot of work. QED237 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We must remember that when we update the table we must also update the pages calling the template, if we want "showteam" to be used. QED237 (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot of work indeed, we would hope that with converting enough we would get a critical mass going forward so other editors would know to use the new format as well for future articles. Articles for lower leagues, which are seldom updated, are note a priority. CRwikiCA talk 15:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The best case scenario is that the major European leagues get converted first because more editors will see it, and as a result the editors who focus on that country convert the lower leagues. Equineducklings (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the reasons I started with England. If England, Germany, Spain and Italy (maybe France) is updated in a early stage more editors and readers will see this new format and may take it to smaller leagues themselves. QED237 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, once the bigger leagues are converted it will also be easier to recruit people to do the leagues they tend to normally update. CRwikiCA talk 15:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Qed237 commented on the English lower levels (non-national) not being completed yet. I have been finishing the national leagues and marking them as "Done" while leaving the lower level leagues for later, or for someone else. Should I be leaving comments as well if there are regional leagues not done yet for countries I have marked as "Done"? I want to make sure I am doing it right. A lot of work has been done so far by many editors. Equineducklings (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between groups

After a discussion with Qed237, I realized that a table might need both a position column and a group column. I made the adjustment to the Module (and its documentation) and I implemented a version at {{UEFA Euro 2016 third-placed table}}. CRwikiCA talk 18:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 in X football

Hi,

Just having a minor help to those updating league tables. Often nations has a summary article related to that season and nation were you can see most important leagues and cups for a nation. Sometimes there are more tables (like England) but it is definately a good start to look at such articles. For example:

2014–15 in English football (top 4 divisions)
2014 in Swedish football (top 3 divisions)
2014–15 in German football (top 4 divisions)

or there can also be templates named in the same way, just as a tip. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of Questions

Should we be including "|status_ZZZ=" when converting tables, or adding them later in the season when they become relevant? I noticed I have been somewhat inconsistent since I was not sure which way was best.

This is more of a redlink question, but I think it's something to think about here. When converting lower leagues, I have run across the problem of season articles, sometimes league articles, not existing when writing "relegated to...". Obviously, when it's an article that will certainly be created in the future (for example, most English leagues), it's fine to add the redlink. However, it is sometimes obvious that the article is not likely to ever be created. I am considering going back and changing some of these. Any thoughts on the best way to deal with this situation?

It's a less important question, but I also wanted to ask how editors are choosing abbreviations. I tend to use the abbreviations from the results table for continuity, I'm not sure if others are doing that or not. How do you choose when that's not an option? Equineducklings (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For tables involving national teams, I always use the FIFA country code. For tables involving clubs, I first look to see what abbreviations were previously used or if the league uses abbreviations in their tables, and I try to use those to maintain consistency. If there were no previous abbreviations for a team - e.g. the MLS expansion teams for 2015 - I create abbreviations which follow the same pattern used by the other clubs, or at least create abbreviations that make sense. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit ambivalent with the status key. In some groups all clubs will have a status at some point, so I typically add it. In leagues, most clubs wouldn't have a status so I typically don't use it. I don't think we have to be forceful one way or another. Logical abbreviation picking is obviously best. CRwikiCA talk 15:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I forgot to answer about the redlinks. When the target season will be created, I typically add the redlink to the season. When the season article will not be created (e.g. relegation to an amateur league and no articles for current and recent seasons) I typically just link to the general league article. CRwikiCA talk 16:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|team1=ZZZ |team2=FFF |team3=EEE |team4=SSS ...

Should we encourage editors to keep this section in this order? I have seen it edited both ways (changing the team numbers and changing the abbreviations), but didn't know whether to change it back when someone did the opposite of how I do it (like the section title). Hope that question made sense. Equineducklings (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While gentle persuasion might be fine, I think it's best left up to the most active editors of a particular page. Please note 2014–15 ASB Premiership, where the editor placed the |teamX=YYY parameters in the same lines as the wins, draws, etc. parameters and continues to change the order of the data so that team1 is on the top, team2 is next, etc. I suggested using the same format as in the module's documentation, but I will defer to the preferences of the active editors of an article. We don't WP:OWN the module and can't dictate the methods of data entry. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nice things about the module (in contrast to the old template structure) is that the data can be organised in any way an editor desires. For this reason I would leave it up to the regular editors of an article/template to determine what order they find most convenient. CRwikiCA talk 03:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Position numbering

I feel like I'm the only one asking questions, but maybe someone else has them too and can learn from reading mine. I think this was covered, but I can't find it. What is the best way to change position numbers for a relegation round, since they don't start at 1? Here is an example from Malta. I know you can add |pos_ZZZ=8 ,is that the best way or am I missing something else?Equineducklings (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Equineducklings:, yes using |pos_ZZZ= is the only way. It might not be most ideal solution, it might be worth introducing a method to set a start and end number to show instead (which could also be useful when a partial table should be shown not centered around a specific team). CRwikiCA talk 15:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why that table has to start at position 7. It is a separate table and the source has pos 1, 2, 3 and so on. I would follow source and start positioning at 1. QED237 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple seasons

Hi,

I just notice we must look out for where there are multiple seasons. For example european youth tournaments start their qualifying very early (qualifying for 2016 starts before 2015 main is played) so now 2016 UEFA European Under-19 Championship qualifying round has not been converted even if our lists says done. Watch out for this on other articles.

@CRwikiCA: I ping CRwikiCA who converted uefa under-21 (I think) but it applies to all of us to be careful looking through all possibilities. QED237 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are others like these UEFA youth tournaments. It's a situation where you are not really Done for very long because of having two tournaments running simultaneously. I'm fairly certain it's unique to these few cases. Equineducklings (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't see that one when I did the conversion, I changed the overview table to indicate that still needs to be done. The same thing holds for the U-17 tournament. CRwikiCA talk 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

Hi,

There is a new discussion about table colors after some back and forth editing at {{2014–15 A-League table}}, where an editor prefers yellow instead of blue. Feel free to join discussion there and/or template talkpage. QED237 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation

Hi,

Documentation is always good and we have not been very good at wikipedia before with documentation. Especially now since it is a new template and editor may have problem updating it (as example how to update when a team has won a cup and that should be included). So I have worked on documentation at Template:2014–15 Premier League table and I would apprecaite all input. I have added a lot of information, but there is always a lot happening in Premier League. For leagues with head to head, that may also need explanation. Let me know what you think and if it is to much or to little information? Then we may use that for other documentations. QED237 (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the documentation is fairly complete, good job. Novice users of the module might be better equipped to see whether anything would be unclear. CRwikiCA talk 21:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16

Is the plan to continue updating the table conversion page with the 2015–16 seasons upcoming? I was unable to edit for a while and when I returned and looked at the conversion page I noticed it has not been updated much. Was the page mainly created for getting the table format out in widespread use, and therefore updating it is not really needed anymore? Equineducklings (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it was mainly used to track conversions and get momentum going. Most people would copy the same format to next year, and because the bigger competitions use it, its use would also trickle down to other places. Feel free to update or change this page as you see appropriate though. CRwikiCA talk 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought the list was for. I noticed a number of 2014–15 tables were never changed, especially Eastern European countries. It's probably late enough in the season to wait until the new season if anyone wants to try to convert those countries tables. All the current and upcoming major competitions look be be done, which was the main goal. Equineducklings (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did help quite a bit in the early stages of the conversion effort. CRwikiCA talk 14:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking through the current European season articles to see how many are not using the new format. I hope to be able to work on some, but I thought this would be a good place to post the ones I found in case anyone else had time to make the changes before I did.

Equineducklings (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Equineducklings: As you may have noticed I have gone through every top division in Europe and have a few nations left (those you list included). This to keep track of all of them to see CL and EL qualified teams but also to make all tables consistent. Those you mention above I plan to update and they are on my list. All tables currently up to speed can be seen at User:Qed237/sandbox#Domestic leagues. Qed237 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you have worked on a number of articles, but I was not aware you planned to look at all of them. Would you prefer I avoid working on them? Equineducklings (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Equineducklings: No not at all, if you want to work at them that is fine. If you have done some of them I can quickly convert them to template and/or quick check for errors and they would probably be completed faster. Now I am occupied a bit with Champions League matches (tuesday and wednesday), Europa League matches (thursday), draw for both CL and EL (friday) and so on. So I can not do much table work in the coming days and if you want to look at the tables it is your choice and I wont stop you. It does not matter to me. What I can say is that I have looked in to the Andorra situation and there is not enough info to create the league article or table for that nation yet. Qed237 (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Equineducklings: Now I think every top division has been converted, now it is the most boring left, documentation. Qed237 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been doing one of those occasionally, I need to do more. You are right, they can be fairly boring. Equineducklings (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]