Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Order of honours

I think we should specify the order of the honours in this MoS. The proposed order is: [domestic_league], [domestic_cup1], [domestic_cup2]...[domestic_cupN], [domestic_supercup], [continental_cup1], [continental_cup2]...[continental_cupN], [continental_supercup], [global_cup1], [global_cup2]...[global_cupN], [other_cup]. Ergo:

  1. Domestic (League --> Cup --> League Cup --> Super Cup)
  2. Continental (Cup --> Supercup)
  3. Global
  4. Other

Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And they require some indication of separation. See Pelé#Honours for a long list that makes no sense if it's not annotated in some way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Toughts on something like this?

Honours and achievements
Club
Club 1

Club 2
etc.

International
Country U19

Country

Individual
Awards

Performances

Records
Country

Club 1


Nehme1499 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the formatting, it's a good idea. I think that breaking it down by club, as we currently do, makes sense, but a few thoughts.
The order is backward: a league win is less important than a cup win, which is less important than an international win. We want the most important to go first. For an individual, club first (in order of years played for the team), nation second, individual third, but then break it down by international, national, league, team. I would also accept that national cup is not as prestigious as league win in many cases.

Team 1

Team 2

etc...

The same would apply to individual honours. Notice the bullets to separate pseudo headings, not big, and this results in no requirement for breaks. Don't forget en-dashes for ranges. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I agree with your formatting. Yes, Champions League is more important than the domestic league. No, the domestic cup isn't more important than the domestic league. I think the Premier League, for example, is universally recognized as more important/relevant than the FA Cup (or the Serie A/La Liga than the Coppa Italia/Copa del Rey). The order should be Champions League, League, Cup, League Cup, Super Cup. Also, I think that clubs should be ordered chronologically, otherwise we would have to change the order way too many times (if we were to do it based on the number of caps). I like the fact that you put bullet points, and that you put the number of titles in brackets, however I think the specific syntax should be the same as the honours section in club articles:

Team 1

  • Champions League
Therefore, with the runners-up in italics, with winners instead of champions and with the season piped to just the year(s). Obviously en-dashes for ranges should be included, I was just lazy in my previous example. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the logic for ordering and the order. Disagree with minor points of formatting as 1) italic should not be used per MOS:ITALIC, 2) the counts go after the colons, and the colons are outside the formatting and 3) we do not need to indicate when only one (1) award has been achieved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
As far as I remember, consensus is that numbers below 5 should not be used as it is not that difficult to count that far. In any case, I think that the numbers are an insult to the reader (who obviously cannot be expected to count) and should be avoided. --Jaellee (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Five would be acceptable to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The point of putting numbers below 5 isn't a matter of lack of ability to count, but of simplicity in being able to directly see the number of titles a club has won. If I go to a specific club, it's very easy to be able to see that they won 8 leagues, 5 cups, 3 league cups and 4 super cups (if we were to include the numbers between brackets). If we were to only add them for 5+ titles, at first glance I would see 8 leagues and 5 cups. Then I would have to count the 3 league cups and the 4 super cups on their own: with competition seasons usually being part of a date range (e.g. 2019–20), it would take a couple of seconds more to count the titles. The difference is between being able to see the number of titles in 0.01 ms, or in 2 seconds: obviously the difference isn't huge, but at this point we might as well help the reader out if we can.
Also, having all competition wins between brackets, regardless of the number, uniforms the width of the text "Winners (X):", so there is also a matter of formatting and design involved. Final point, a given reader who sees brackets for certain competitions and nothing for others will ask himself why that is the case: are the competitions not in brackets unofficial? Have they been revoked? Are they less important? We would have to add a note specifying that only competitions that have been won more than 4 times are included between brackets, which seems a bit pedantic.
Seeing something like the following...
  • Champions League
  • League
    • Winners (8): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18,
  • Cup
    • Winners (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19
  • League Cup
    • Winners (3): 2011–12, 2014–15, 2018–19
  • Super Cup
    • Winners (4): 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19
...is much clearer than:
  • Champions League
  • League
    • Winners (8): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18,
  • Cup
    • Winners (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19
  • League Cup
    • Winners: 2011–12, 2014–15, 2018–19
  • Super Cup
    • Winners: 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19
@Walter Görlitz:, regarding your 3 points: 1) italics doesn't make a difference to me, but at this point runners-up shouldn't be in bold, 2) I personally prefer the counts to go before the colons, as you are saying "Winners x5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5", not "Winners: x5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5"; also, I would rather have the (5) be in bold (I agree on the colons not being part of the formatting, so unbolded), 3) I have explained my point above. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Then don't mark them with any formatting. And we're talking about numbers in parenthesis. Most certainly one win does not need a number. If we have an existing consensus for no counts for fewer than five, it would take creating a new consensus to change that, particularly if we point to the original discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I would much rather have no brackets at all then have them for 5+. Also, what I was trying to say is that logically, "Winners: (5) 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19" is the same as saying "Winners: 5x 2010–11, 2011–12, 2014–15, 2016–17, 2018–19". The point is, we are syntactically saying "Winners five times: this year, that year, that other year...", not "Winners: five times this year, that year, that other year...". Anyway, we are just nitpicking. We both agree on the main structure of the honours section. We just need more people to give us their input. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I could back a "times" sign, but, per WP:⋅, it should be × or an ×, not an "x". Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm not being very clear. I don't want an "x5" (or ×5), I was just trying to make an analogy. I want "Winners (5): 2010–11, etc.", not "Winners: (5) 2010–11, etc.". Nehme1499 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Probably my quick read. To clarify, your preference is not to have any count at all. I too can back that, but would still like to see the earlier consensus discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would prefer to have the count in brackets regardless of how many times the title has been won. Same goes for me, seeing the consensus discussion would be useful. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Club statistics totals

Wouldn't it make more sense to write "Clubname total" instead of just "Total" in the totals rows? For example, in this MoS, "Template United total" and "Template Rangers total", instead of just "Total" and "Total". This way, we remove any room for ambiguity. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any ambiguity if the club's rowspan includes the "total" row. Seems pretty clear to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Robby - especially as if a player has had two spells at a club, the totals are for the spell and not the club... GiantSnowman 19:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

"Career statistics" section headings

Hi folks! Recently, we've been able to clarify a few things relating to players' articles here. Thank you in particular to Nehme1499 (talk · contribs) for initiating the discussions.

I'd like to settle another question: In the "Career statistics" section which of the following two is to be preferred?

a)

Club

International

International goals

b)

Club

International

International goals

In recent years I always assumed a) was consensus. Most articles look like that and our player template also did. But in early March PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) and I had a small disagreement at Park Ji-sung (edit history at Park) and they ended up modifying the template (edit history of the template).

Arguments I can think of in favour of b):

  • "International goals" are a subset of the stats shown in "international"
  • I was also told that "it is supposed to have an overall summary table as part of the main "International" section (which could be subsectioned off), and then goals would be a subsection of that"

Argument in favour of a):

For me, the argument in favour of a) carries much more weight.

What do others think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If "International goals" can't be a subsection of "International stats", perhaps it should just exist as another table within the same section, rather than making it a subsection on the same level. It seems weird to have a table of international goals being anything other than a subsection of "International stats". – PeeJay 12:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Robby.is.on for the mention! The premise is that the "International" subsection of the "Career statistics" section should contain two things: a table with the goals per year of the player (see, for example, Lionel Messi), as well as a table containing the international goals (such as Roda Antar). So, in my opinion, we have two viable options:
  • We subdivide "Career statistics" into "Club" and "International". "Club" has the usual table, while "International" has the two tables (the year-by-year table above, and the goals below). No subsections, just a single section called "International".
  • We create two subsections of "International": "Year-by-year" (or something similar) and "Goals".
I'm open to any of the two. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Whatever section the international apps by year table and the international goals table are placed in – usually an International sub-section of the Career statistics section – they absolutely don't need individual sub-sub-sections of their own. An adequate table caption is plenty enough heading. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Struway2:. I think removing the "International goals" heading makes a lot of sense and that table captions would suffice.
New proposal below, with frequently used captions:

Club

International

Appearances and goals by national team, year and competition

List of international goals scored by <player>

Is this something everyone can agree on? :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, table headings seem like a good compromise. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that works. I've tried it out here if people want to see what it looks like in practice. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
The Irwin example is good, subject to removing the 'source' wording at the start of each section. We need season-by-season in-line citations really. GiantSnowman 13:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why that would be necessary for an international year-by-year table, and I can't say that I've ever seen one referenced in that way. The source used provides a definitive record of his international stats, so it would be redundant repeating it line by line when one reference is sufficient. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Line-by-line referred to club stats, sorry. For international the reference could/should go next to the country name in the table, as I have done at Irwin. GiantSnowman 06:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Writing "Source:[1]" looks horrible. It makes sense if we had "As of match played 19 April 2020[1]" (for players who are yet to retire), but having a line with the word "Source" doesn't mean anything. Either we put the source next to each club, instead of each line, or we just duplicate the ref line-per-line. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Could you expand on how it looks "horrible"? It presents the reference to our readers in an easily identifiable and accessible manner, and there's no need to duplicate a single, definitive reference like you did here. If we were to do that, there would be no need to have a separate reference column; the references live quite happily in the season column, which is what we've been doing for pretty much forever. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
In-line citations make sense when the reference is sourcing a claim. Say, "Tim Template scored 10 goals in the 2011 season.[1]". The sentence should make sense on its own, without the source. Without the reference, we would have "Source:", which doesn't mean anything. A source sources a claim, and the word "Source:" isn't one. About how to display the refs, I don't mind, as long as we don't write "Source:" in a separate line. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be clear and obvious to the vast majority of our readers what "Source:" means. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Guess @EEng found a solution. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
You may wire my fee to the usual numbered account. EEng 17:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
A perfect solution. GiantSnowman 17:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be WP:BOLD and just apply the change. But only three of us have participated in this discussion, no one else seems to be interested... Nehme1499 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we say that there is consensus for the following?
  1. "Career statistics" section with two sub-sections: "Club" and "International"
  2. "Club" contains one table, titled "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition"
  3. Source the club statistics on a season-by-season basis, placing the citation next to the season. If the source is the same for the whole table, then place the citation next to either "As of match played [date]" (in case the player is yet to retire) or the title "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition"
  4. "International" contains two tables, titled "Appearances and goals by national team and year" and "List of international goals scored by [player name]"
  5. Sourcing similar to the Club table
Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
There has been discussion about avoiding rowspan in tables for reasons of accessibility. MOS:ACCESS otherwise, it looks fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone, for the fruitful discussion and thanks to @Nehme1499: for updating the template. :-) I also see the addition of a key about indication of goals scored by penalties, something I don't think I've come across in any article in my time here. Was this discussed somewhere? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I've copied the format from Featured Lists, such as List of international goals scored by Hassan Maatouk, or List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri. If we agree that it should be removed in the player articles, and kept just in the FLs, I'm ok with it. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind having that at those pages but it's too much detail for the regular "Career statistics" section of a player's article. I'll remove it. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Players/Archive_4&oldid=978631696"