Template talk:Infobox football club/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

location along with ground or stadium parameter

I have seen a great many football club articles list the location of the club's ground after the location for the stadium.

• | ground = Georgios Karaiskakis Stadium
Piraeus, Greece

All MLS clubs have it. Very few English clubs have it. Should we state that it should not be present in the documentation or should was state it is optional and not proffered, or something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think the majority of English club articles do have it. However, it appears that an IP (217.43.121.133 (talk · contribs)) removed it from Premier League/Football League club articles in September earlier this year. I think their edits need undoing. Number 57 21:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's chaos regarding this thing. Let's say 50% of League X teams have |ground=stadium X, location X while the other 50% have only |ground=stadium X. I see the author of this section reverted my edits, because he thinks The documentation doesn't state it should not contain location. Then I may ask – what's the purpose of documentation? In my opinion, documentation is there to give a CLEAR idea of how something should look like and nothing should be invented without discussing first. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

How is that chaos? I reverted because you claimed a fact when it wasn't. The documentation is a guideline, not a fact. And since the docs do not state that location should not be included, I'm not sure how you can think it should be removed if present. If you can show me that wording the present documentation, I would be happy to self-revert my removal of the content. What you have is an absence of location, but that does not state anything about whether it should or should not be present.

I don't care if it is present or not. I think the documentation should state whether it may be present or not and I would argue it's not a bad thing to have. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but there should be consistency between club articles whatever the final decision is. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree on consistency. A fine example would be NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB teams. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Read again what I wrote Walter and maybe you'll then understand what I mean by chaos. No consistency = chaos. Here's the definition of guideline – a general rule, principle, or piece of advice. Since documentation is a guideline and in my opinion – a general rule – it should be discussed FIRST before adding location under the stadium. Or better else – |location= parameter should be created to avoid unnecessary edit wars. It's not my problem that the creator of this documentation didn't state something clearly. I think that this needs to be taken to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football if we want to reach a consensus faster. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote and you didn't read what I wrote. if you want to continue to play stupid games go ahead. It is Wikipedia's problem when you claim that the documentation supports your actions when it doesn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I did read. And you're the one playing stupid games. I follow the guideline which only includes stadium and not location (since there's no mention about location). Guidelines are created for a reason. It's not my problem that some people like to create their own rules. And it's also not my fault that guidelines aren't clear to some people who like to interpret things their way... – Sabbatino (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is one of your edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC&diff=697602504&oldid=697489322 "Per Template:Infobox football club documentation". Now if you would be so good as to show me where in the documentation it states that city and other content should not be in the template.

As a counterpoint, I offer Template:Infobox album where there are three parameters: "recorded", "venue" and "studio". Next to the first it clearly states that "and where - deprecated - see below" should not list the location of recording as that parameter has been split into venue and studio. So if you were to go around deleting studio and city from the recorded parameter, or preferably, moving it to a venue or studio parameter, you would be following the template's documentation.

Whereas Template:Infobox person has locations for birth and death and those could be a city, or some other venue because it's not clearly stipulated. Biographies, such as that of Abraham Lincoln have venues along with cities, yet by your supposed argument, because the example only displays a city name the article I just linked is wrong and the Good Article status it bears should be taken away, as should the location.

So perhaps, instead of pretending that the documentation supports your deletion, editing based on the partial examples, then trying to cover your ass and accusing others for the problem, perhaps you could be constructive and clarify before you waste your time and that of others. it might be best to admit that you may have been wrong in deleting the cities from the MLS articles as you did then try to focus on determining if cities should or should not be listed in templates for all teams. Currently, it seems as though we're in favour of having it and I have proposed that a separate parameter should be supplied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

1. This is it – "ground — The name of the club's home ground (use stadium to label as stadium for American clubs)." It clearly states that stadium's name should be included here. No mention about location. 2. You try to show me an example and fail in doing so. I'm referring to Template:Infobox album example. I have |venue= parameter in mind. The description for this parameter is "Place where a live album was recorded." LIVE, LIVE, LIVE... Looks like someone misread and didn't see that this parameter is used only for LIVE albums. 3. As previously – failure in showing an example and your loss of arguments just begins to grow. A person is not a stadium – he/she migrates from one place to another. Country borders change all the time, city names change, etc. Furthermore, for example, when you have in mind London, it can have different meanings as shown here. 4. But documentation DOES SUPPORT my actions. I'm not accusing anyone of anything as I only stated facts by telling what is clear and what isn't. 5. You are starting to take all this very personally which is not good. I advise you to stop it. You're the only user on whole Wikipedia that made an issue of out of this small thing. 6. I was the first one to propose that |location= should be created. Don't take all the credit for yourself. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

So you're arguing that because it does not list city in the template it should not be included in articles. Since you updated MLS clubs, I'll stick to the word stadium thanks. You're wrong and you know it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any mistakes in my edits and I'm not wrong. You wanted arguments for my actions, I gave you arguments. If that doesn't satisfy you – it's your problem. This isn't the place to make personal attacks. I will start to classify your messages towards me like that, because I see that you're starting to get personal against me (already mentioned in my message above). If you'll start to try and find a way out of this nonsense (which you started) instead of arguing then the personal attack tag will be gone. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Going back to the topic. It's a mixed bag regarding this matter. I just checked 2015–16 Bundesliga page and 16 out of 18 teams list only stadium and no location. However, when I went to 2015–16 Ligue 1, 2015–16 Serie A and other major football leagues, things started getting really interesting and the result between stadium and stadium+location was about ±50%. As I said before – it's chaos and there's no consistency whatsoever. So we are here for a reason – to determine what should or shouldn't be listed in the infobox. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:FOOTBALL has been notified of this discussion. The comments from Struway2 below suggest it should be included as there was no consensus for its removal. Number 57 13:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

For information: the example in the documentation used to contain the location, until it was changed from a real club to a generic one, without discussion, some years ago. I'm guessing most people wouldn't have noticed its disappearance, and those that did notice wouldn't have inferred that we should stop including locations. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's restore it. It might be worthwhile to include a separate parameter so that we can format it correctly. We should also make it clear to avoid WP:OVERLINKs. Any suggestions on updates and new wording? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change

I suggest we change the example to be:

| ground        = [[Example Stadium]]<br>[[Olonkinbyen]], [[Jan Mayen]], Norway
| coordinates   = {{coord|70|55|19|N|8|42|54|W|display=inline,title}}
| capacity      = 500

Alternately, we could use a real stadium that has multiple, shared tenants such as Wembley Stadium or similar. I chose Olonkinbyen because it's essentially uninhabited. Then in the TemplateData section, we update the documentation to read "The name of the club's home ground and location, separated by a break. Do not link nation per WP:OVERLINK." We then make similar changes to the Stadium parameter.

I would do away with the break; (a) it's unnecessary, and (b) it looks ridiculous in wide infoboxes when there is a short stadium and town/city name. I would also omit anything except the stadium and town/city names. Country and district is unnecessary. Number 57 15:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. We should only list stadium. However, if there's an agreement on listing something more besides stadium, we should list |ground=Ground, City. Although, for US/Canadian teams we should list |stadium=Stadium, City, State in order to keep consistency with the biggest sports leagues. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Why should we only list the stadium? The vast majority of articles list the stadium and the city, as that is the way it has largely been done up until now. Removing the city denies the reader useful information (for instance, where clubs play at grounds not in their home city). Number 57 13:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Readers can click through to the stadium article for the city, etc. I'm not in favour of ground only, but that would be a valid reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
      • You're commenting my first sentence. In the next sentences I explained what formation I would favor... – Sabbatino (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Your comment is written in a way that makes it clear that you favour omitting the city, but you would accept it if other people are in favour. Or have you changed your mind? Number 57 16:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Looks like I wrote the sentence starting with however, didn't I? I'm in favor of listing only stadium, but if people agree on listing city alongside stadium then it should be listed as I've shown above. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's the stadium that matters and not the city. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

If I might suggest an alternative:

| ground        = [[Example Stadium]]
| location      = [[Olonkinbyen]], [[Jan Mayen]], Norway
| coordinates   = {{coord|70|55|19|N|8|42|54|W|display=inline,title}}
| capacity      = 500

The template could use a line break for now to separate the ground and location parameters if that is the common formatting used now, but individual articles should be updated with separate parameters. Then the template can be revised from time to time if desired, for example, to separate ground and location with a comma or to place location on a separate row (similar to the coordinates)—or even hide/deprecate location altogether. Clever wikipedians may even figure out how to tailor the display to suit their preferences. —sroc 💬 17:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This would be better. I already made it clear that a separate parameter for location should be created. In my opinion, only City, Country should be listed for European, Asian, Oceanian, African and Latin American clubs. Whereas, American and Canadian clubs should be consistent with clubs of major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada and list City, State (for US)/Province (for Canada). – Sabbatino (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Country shouldn't be listed. Number 57 18:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Why not? Country is usually included in infoboxes for people. The league name does not necessarily identify the country, either: Wellington Phoenix FC is based in New Zealand, but the league name A-League doesn't clearly name the country and, in fact, it is primarily Australian (the A). —sroc 💬 03:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Because in 99.99% of articles it's unnecessary. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the 0.01% of articles where clubs play outside their countries, but enforcing this on all articles is pointless. Number 57 12:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I was think about that, but parameters can be anywhere and "location" could be the location of the club if misplaced. I was going to suggestion "ground_location and "stadium_location" but that requires a bit more work to the template, but makes sense. As for country, it doesn't have to be listed. There are three Canadian clubs in the US-based MLS and two in US-based NASL. Monaco in La Liga, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Location parameter should be attributed to club's location. For example, in my country there's a club called FK Trakai and of course they're from [[Trakai]. However, they don't have a stadium that meets UEFA requirements, so they play their home games at LFF Stadium in Vilnius. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point. The parameter is for the ground or stadium, not the club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Read again what you wrote above my message and I stated my opinion on that matter. This discussion is a dead-end as far as I'm concerned. Only 3 people (+1 who left one message) engaged in this discussion and WP:Football just archived this notification long ago... – Sabbatino (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Three is enough to make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sabbatino is reverting again

Stop being a jerk. The template guidelines do not support removing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS makes it clear that consensus is not the same as a vote. Three editors agreed that it is acceptable (but not required) to include the location. What was not agreed on was whether it should be added as a field and applied by the template or whether it should simply be added to the ground/stadium parameter. Further discussion would be fine.

The wording I have applied is not perfect and could be improved. The example I applied is what I suggested above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_football_club/doc&oldid=prev&diff=740520849 as an example. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit overkill to include the stadium/ground's location in infobox. SLBedit (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Where the location of the stadium is not obvious from its name, or the team's "home" stadium is somewhere other than in the city with which the team is identified, the information is quite helpful - not to mention short, which together would seem to make it precisely the kind of summary information that infoboxes were created to present. JohnInDC (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The location of the stadium may be helpful, but the parameter |ground= ("The name of the club's home ground") does not mention "location". SLBedit (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Two things. The first is, this discussion is designed to determine if it's helpful to include location. Presently it's 4:2 in favour of including location. It seems you would be in favour of it if location were a separate parameter. I made that suggestion above, but it did not gain any traction.

The second is that I added location (and fixed a MOS:CAPS issue) earlier today, but Sabbatino reverted stating that there was no consensus to add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I don't understand your objection. You say the parameter description doesn't say anything about including the location of the stadium, but we wrote that and it can easily be changed. Basing your objection on something like template documentation – which was never formally approved, just implemented by one user – seems a bit daft. – PeeJay 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz and PeeJay2K3: I want to propose a compromise that stadium's location should be included when the stadium is located in other city than the club is heaquartered. And that should apply for ALL leagues. For example, this or this would be unacceptable, because the team and stadium is in the same city. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not "unacceptable"; it's standard practice and has been since the early days of Wikipedia. I really don't understand why this is such a problem for you. Number 57 11:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The only problem that I see is you. I came here with a compromise which I proposed, but you, instead of writing something meaningful, just made a hostile reply, which just means that I will ignore everything you write. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is my compromise: always list the city when it's not in team's name, otherwise it's optional to list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 March 2017

In |image=, replace |upright=1 with |upright={{{upright|}}}.

This adds |upright= to the template syntax, making it compliant with MOS:UPRIGHT and WP:IMAGESIZE. I tested this change in the template's sandbox, and it works properly. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Please add this to the template documention. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Colours

In most of the world - and in international football - there are no "home colours" or "away colours." The kits should be described as "first colours," "second colours," and "third colours." 64.231.69.134 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not always:

• FC Bayern Shirt Home 17/18
• FC Bayern Shirt Away 17/18
• FC Bayern Shirt Champions League 17/18

See also http://store.manutd.com/stores/manutd/en/c/football-kits and I'm sure more could be presented. I would have no problems with suggesting that the template should allow editors to decide between "First, Second, Third" and "Home, Away, Other". Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

I want to add section Founder in this Template. I hope for Positive response. What do you mean? 08:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don"t think this is necessary. Number 57 08:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

American=true for "Stadium/Ground" forces "ground" to be stadium.

Why does setting "American=true" have to force the ground parameter to be labelled as "stadium" when it isn't appropriate for some cases especially for lower-tiered clubs or clubs playing in a country where football isn't a primary sport (in such cases the football clubs play in football pitches without fixed-seating). The problem is when such football clubs plays home games in football pitches and are based in countries which US spelling is the norm. (e.g. Philippines where "color" is the preferred spelling over "colour").Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe "American=yes" is required to change between stadium/ground now as the parameter "stadium" exists and can be used (as it is for example at Toronto FC. We could just therefore remove the change made to this line by "American=yes", which means including that would only change the spelling of colour. Number 57 12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That is correct, but will cause problems for articles where that parameter was used to only change "ground" to "stadium". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy to do a quick AWB run on American/Canadian clubs to change any use of the ground parameter. Then the change can be made without affecting any articles. Number 57 14:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That should work. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've done the AWB run and removed the change to the ground/stadium name using American=yes. Hopefully this solves your issue Hariboneagle927. Cheers, Number 57 18:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw as all of the North American teams on my watchlist were touched. Looks good and I have spot-checked some other pages now that the template has changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nickname, short name and other parameters

There are several parameters have have no documentation regarding use.

I see short name being used to contain initialism. For instance, Real Madrid C.F. had (until I edited it) the short names of "Real, RM, RMA, RMD". It had no nickname. Manchester City F.C., whose nickname is "city" doesn't have that either as a short name or a nickname, but it has an initialism while Manchester United F.C. has MUFC and neither "United" nor "Man U". Some clarification should be made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the shortname parameter actually worked. I can't see any reason to keep it either. Number 57 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that they seem to be redundant and that we get rid of one or the other? It would be a simple matter to commission a bot to do that work for us (move the contents of the parameter we want to remove and add it to the other).

I'm also concerned that we should stipulate what constitutes the parameter as some clear content is being ignored and other content is being presented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with N57, what is the point of this parameter? GiantSnowman 15:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Yes, I think we should get rid of shortname. In theory we don't actually need to remove it from every article – we just remove it from the infobox template, and then even if the parameter is used in articles, it simply doesn't show up. However, we could get a bot to remove it too. Number 57 15:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So 1) remove the parameter and it no longer shows rather than 2) remove the parameter after we've move the field values to nickname. I'm OK with that. Most of its uses are initialisms.

That brings me back to actually defining what is and isn't a "nickname". Would initialisms be a nickname? In other words, is FCB a nickname for both Barcelona and Bayern (Munich)? They use it for themselves. Is MUFC and Man U a nickname for Manchester United or is it only the latter? Or should we leave it vague and allow the last edit (or local consensus) rule each article? I'm hoping to expand the documentation to clarify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FCB, MUFC, and Man U aren't nicknames. I support the removal of |short name= because it's already placed in |name= (not to confuse the latter with |fullname=). SLBedit (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The only reason why |short name= should be used is when there is an officially used name that is different from the long name, aside from removing a word like "City" or "United". The only example I can think of where this is the case is Milton Keynes Dons (short name: MK Dons), where official club sources almost never refer to the club by the long name except in an official context. Initialisation of a club name is not short name in my view, unless it's regularly used by the club, media and general public to refer to the team (such as The New Saints (TNS), Queens Park Rangers (QPR) or Paris Saint-Germain (PSG)). I can't say I've ever heard Barcelona referred to as FCB on a TV broadcast or seen Manchester United referred to as MUFC in a major newspaper, whereas I have heard TNS and QPR noted as such. It's possible that these could be considered nicknames and be listed as such in the infobox of these clubs. Clyde1998 (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

In other projects where I work, the infobox should be a summary of the article. I would suggest that we should adopt a similar guideline with respect to the nickname. The club's nickname should be discussed and sourced in the article. Without a discussion or reference, it should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Infobox should be a summary, hitting only the most essential points. But a shortened version of the club's name, if used extensively by the club, would belong in such a summary. Consider clubs like LAFC or NYFC, where their initialisms are used as much (if not more so) than the full name. I would agree to Clyde1998's suggestion, where a shortened name used extensively by the club could be listed in the Infobox. Distinguishes it from nicknames, which may be unofficial. SixFourThree (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree

Color(s)

@Walter Görlitz: @GiantSnowman: I think that club colo(u)rs should also be included in this infobox. Why aren't they included anyway? Or is it that they were removed for some reason? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Not sure if you're watching, so I'll ping. How are you wanting this to be represented? Do you want words to be used? Do you want a box of some sort that represents the information? Do you want labels to be used as well? Or do you want a combination as is done at {{Infobox school athletics}}?

There's probably a manual of style or accessibility guideline that argues against it, but apart from that, my first concern would be edit wars over the actual names of the colours and the correct colour representation of the colour. Clubs have media guides that show the correct pantone colour (or related process colour) to be used, and it changes on occasion. I foresee edit wars over the slight variations. I also see problems with people using "close" colours. As a side note, the colour of the Canadian flag was incorrect in the Canada article because someone created an early image of the flag that did not have the officially recognized colour of the flag. I have also seen edit wars over team colours used in headings, so I don't expect less in infoboxes.

My second concern would be accessibility, but if both the name and the colour are present, it should be acceptable. If the team doesn't concern itself with low-visibility or colour-blind fans, we can't represent things differently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We show the kit, that's more than enough. GiantSnowman 09:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed – what are club colours if not the kit? Number 57 18:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many times when additional colours are added to the kits. I'm neutral on the point, but if a club's colours are only a specific shade of blue and white, but their kits include a black accent, it's not clear. If there's a discussion about colours, wouldn't the infobox do well to represent them? Look at Chelsea F.C.#Colours then scroll up to the infobox. No indication of "eton blue" there. And what are Arsenal F.C.#Colours? The infobox would have us see them as red, white, black and aquamarine green. I'm sorry, "they're in the kits" isn't a good argument. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since clubs have clash kits specifically designed to be outside of their official colors. Heck, given how colleges are now "experimenting" with grays and blacks and other colors, maybe there should be a discussion over there about {{Infobox school athletics}}. If clubs release their own list of official colors, then we could put them here without controversy. But I'm not aware that many do, so this seems guaranteed to start edit wars. SixFourThree (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree.

@Walter Görlitz: Like in the Infobox sports team or the infobox basketball club. Your example with the infobox school athletics is also good, similar to the two mentioned by me. It works perfectly fine for those two infoboxes, so why not for football teams? The colors can be confirmed like any other info about the club, so I don't see why it should be any different compared to other parameters.

@Number 57: @GiantSnowman: No, exactly not. Some football clubs wear different colors than their club colors! So your argument underlines exactly the opposite. The same goes for GiantSnowman's point, pretty much the same logic there. It is possible that a club has different colors on their kit than their club colours. I'm sure that there are some examples. If needed, I could research and find some maybe. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I already found a well known example: Hannover 96. Their official club colors are black-white-green, although their kits are traditionally red, literally earning them their nickname "The Reds". This demonstrates the point very well. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes, Bayern Munich (red and white) use red shirt with blue shorts, and Benfica (also red and white) use red shirt with black shorts – colours that have nothing to do with both clubs' official colours. SLBedit (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I still think this is a bad idea; we don't need more things adding to the infobox, and especially something that there is likely to be a lot of edit warring over. Number 57 22:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

An unnecessary automatic link?

The 'current=' field creates a link to whatever is entered in it. This is unnecessary if the entry is a number, and can create an error if something else is (e.g. 3rd in Shah Alam Antlers, a link to a DAB page which I've just spent 5 minutes fixing and reporting here). I think we all know what 3 is. Narky Blert (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You're using the "current" parameter wrong. That parameter is meant to be for linking to the club's current season, e.g. 2018–19 Manchester United F.C. season. – PeeJay 16:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

coach, manager, vorstand and other roles

european clubs often own a company running the first team football. the roles in a club are therefor the clubs roles, the companies roles. often the management and the coaching is split. how can this be best acommodated in this template? or it is better to split off another? ThurnerRupert (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You can already have both Manager and Coach appear in an infobox. The manager parameter can also be renamed with "mgrtitle =" to change it to things like "Director of Football" or "General Manager". Number 57 20:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Using Wikidata properties for defaults

Hi all, Would it be possible to use Wikidata properties as a fallback for some of the fields? Like they do on Template:Infobox company.

For example, for the website:

 
  | label15    = Website
  | data15     = {{URL|1={{{website|{{wikidata|property|P856}}}}}|2=Club website}}
  

And for the founded/dissolved dates:

 
  | label4     = Founded
  | data4      = {{{founded|{{wikidata|property|edit|P571}}}}}

  | label5     = Dissolved
  | data5      = {{{dissolved|{{wikidata|property|edit|P576}}}}}
  

And probably others.

It would make it easier to keep infoboxes more complete, and would help other wikis.

Thanks - odg (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please make your proposed edits to the sandbox, and use Module:WikidataIB so that only sourced data is brought in from Wikidata. For examples of how to use WikidataIB, see Template:Infobox person/Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Add "Fan Group(s)" field for naming fan groups. Snack0verflow (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I am deeply opposed to the idea. Many articles in the North American milieu have unsourced supporters groups and that's because they would go into a section hidden in the article, but making it a prominent parameter in the infobox would make it virtually unmanageable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Please add an optional matricule perimeter for Belgian clubs, it is really hard to find them and the first place I always look is the infobox. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Uniform colors on Timeless layout

The "pattern" fields displays really bad when using the Timeless official layout. This is caused by the use of the class toccolours. On Timeless design, this class is associated with several CSS rules other than just the colors of the ToC, including display:table, which makes it look broken on that layout. As I believe changing the CSS of that layout is more complicated (as you'd have to check all the places where it's being applied), I suggest you to remove the class toccolours from this infobox. The only real benefit the template is receiving from that class is the border, so you could add that as an inline style with the following: border:1px solid #eaecf0;. —CamiloCBranco (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 August 2021

I'm a little surprised there isn't a parameter for city. Unless there's some good reason not to include it, I request that a city (and perhaps country) parameter be added to the template. Following this, the auto short description should utilise the city where possible. Cheers! — HTGS (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The city name should be written after the stadium name, so there's no need for a separate parameter. Country name isn't needed and I suspect would lead to confusion/edit warring in cases where a club plays in a different country's league. Number 57 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That was actually a debate a little over 18 months ago. Some editors felt it should not be included along with the ground or stadium parameter, and other (most) felt it was acceptable to include. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57@Walter Görlitz, thank you both. I feel though that the location of the team’s stadium isn’t necessarily the same as the team’s location, and this could solve everyone’s concerns. An example was given in the previous discussion, where a team plays at a stadium not located at the team’s “home”. With a new parameter, the location of the team would be listed by default, and the stadium’s location could then be added where necessary to clarify when it is different to the team’s home.

The main reason I raised this request in the first place though was that a city/location parameter for the team would add crucial basic info to the infobox; someone coming naïve to the page could easily be looking for where the team is from, and may not see the grounds/stadium as the place to start. — HTGS (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Still don't think this is necessary. What is a club's location if not its home ground? Clubs may have various sites all in different locations (several London clubs' training bases are outside London). I can see very little benefit and lots of potential problems to adding this. Number 57 11:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It feels a little like you expect any parameter we add to be a mandatory one, especially reading your comments in the previous discussion (eg, Perhaps [the country] could be mentioned in the 0.01% of articles where clubs play outside their countries, but enforcing this on all articles is pointless). Editors of any given article can easily choose to omit a parameter if it doesn't make sense for the club.

And the more I think about it, a club that plays in another country's league is even more in need of a country label. I can't imagine a situation where people would disagree that Wellington Phoenix's country is New Zealand, especially given that the (primarily Australian) league is spelled out. But if there are clubs where it's really that ambiguous, we can certainly decide to leave the parameter unused. The possibility of edit-warring is not a good enough reason to stop improving templates.

As for a club's location that is not its home grounds, Sabbatino gave a very clear example last time, with FK Trakai, who were based in Trakai, but whose stadium is in Vilnius. I can't imagine that is the only example that will ever occur. — HTGS (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

How would you define "team location"? Where their head office is located? Where they practice? The majority of readers see the team at their stadium or ground, nowhere else, so it makes sense to associate that with the team. Do you have examples of where the two are not the same? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

My experience is that if a parameter exists, editors will attempt to use, regardless of its suitability for different cases. And this isn't an improvement IMO, it's just adding potential clutter. If a country name is required for whatever reason, editors can already add it in the stadium parameter. Having a separate parameter for it will suggest to people that it's expected to be used.

Also, pinging specific editors from previous discussions that agree with your point is poor form. Number 57 17:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz I gave you a crystal clear example. Can either of you give me examples of where this change would lead to disagreements or where the parameter would be obviously misleading? Maybe that would help make your point.

@Number 57 I appreciate that an empty parameter is one that people are tempted to fill, but in my experience (adding parameters to widely used templates) it isn’t as big a deal as you would think. Most people don’t notice that they’re there, we are still talking about a parameter that shouldn’t cause more harm than good, and it’s really not difficult to provide guidance in the doc for its use. Especially as this is the exact sort of “clutter” that infoboxes are intended to convey. And I didn’t tag Sabbatino to ping them, but because it felt more rude to mention someone without tagging them. I’d already alluded to the example without being specific, trying to avoid pinging anyone unnecessarily. But as this isn’t a vote, I doubt it really matters, does it?

My impression was that you both were opposed to the location being removed from the grounds param. At this point, most of the pages with the template are missing a location from the grounds. If the location of the stadium is the location of the team, then adding the location parameter would solve the issue of the last discussion, and, under your concern, it would prompt people to add this location. If we really wanted to, the parameter could even display appended to the ground or stadium item. It doesn’t need it’s own label. — HTGS (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the only link you provided was to FK Riteriai which, according to the article, is based in Vilnius and their ground is located in Vilnius. So that was easy either I missed your crystal clear example or your definition of crystal clear is different than mine. On the other hand, Sporting Kansas City is based in a city that is on two sides of a state line, with the team's administrative offices in Kansas City, Missouri, while the clubhouse and practice facilities are located in Kansas City, Kansas.

A quick check of the template in a few other languages and a few other sports on the English project, and only {{Infobox NFL team}} has a city parameter that lists "play in", so it is the equivalent of this infobox's ground and stadium parameter. So I don't really see that it's a necessary field. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been involved with several high-use infoboxes, and this is an issue in my experience. I do not support this proposed change. Number 57 08:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz a bit late to this, but to answer your question Do you have examples of where the two are not the same? then F.C. Kafr Qasim is a team from Kafr Qasim which plays at Lod Municipal Stadium which is in Lod. I highly doubt anyone would think they are a team from Lod. Gonnym (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Including major trophies in the infobox

On the Italian version of Wikipedia (it:Template:Squadra di calcio), they include images of a teams' major trophies on the infobox and what competitions they are the reigning winners of (see it:Chelsea Football Club for a good example). Is this something we could include on the English Wikipedia? Geolojoey (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No. It's not key information and for some clubs it would mean cramming lots of stuff into the infobox. It would probably also lead to endless edit wars about what to include. Number 57 18:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to integrate Template:Football kit home and away

On mobile web browsers, this infobox usually have a small problem that caused football kit icons shift to left, which looks different than desktop view. {{Football kit home and away}} is already fine tuned for both desktop and mobile view to keep consistency between them, so it would be nice to integrate this template into infobox. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That's rather vague. Which OS? Which browser? Which screen resolutions? On my iPhone 11 XS with a screen resolution of 1125 x 2436 px and 458 ppi FC Bayern Munich, with three kits, looks fine; the "s" in third colours is truncated. Vancouver Whitecaps FC has two kits, and they are left-justified. Club Fulgencio Yegros with only one kit, is also left-justified. Are you suggesting that they should be centre-justified? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Width in Timeless skin

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T309500

Is it just me or does this infobox render taking up much more space than it should – on the order of half the page width? Is it possible to correct this? ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  09:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Please link to an example page where you are seeing this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I first noticed it on Real Madrid, but it's on all pages, including the examples on the template doc. Spec is Firefox 100 and Timeless Wikipedia theme. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  15:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

On my screen, the infobox on Real Madrid CF is about 328 pixels wide, which is wider than a normal infobox, but not totally unreasonable unless you are enlarging the text a lot or using the new Vector 2022 skin (see below). I believe this width is caused by {{Football kit}}, which shows the uniform, being used three times side-by-side; that template is a minimum of 100px wide each time. Add some padding, and it's not difficult to get to 328 pixels. On Plymouth Argyle F.C., where only two kits are displayed, the infobox is a more reasonable 256 pixels wide.

I suppose you could advocate for removal of the third kit from the infobox, but I suspect that the real problem is that you are using, possibly not by choice, a "skin" that displays Wikipedia pages suboptimally. If you are using the new Vector skin for viewing Wikipedia, that skin's silly forced article width limit will compound this problem. I recommend switching to the Vector legacy skin in Preferences. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Amended to say: I re-read your note, and you said that you are using the Timeless skin, which looks even worse. Plymouth FC also looks bad, and it appears in both cases that the infobox puts the entire set of kits into the "label" column. I don't know anything about the Timeless skin or why this infobox is too wide when using it. I'll put a pointer to here from WP:VPT. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Something in the toccolours class apparently causes the Timeless issue. Reduced test code which still has the issue:

{{Infobox football club| fullname = Plymouth| body1 = 004000}}

Enter at Special:ExpandTemplates, copy result field without class="toccolours", and the issue disappears for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice job tracking it down. Now I wonder where to fix the problem: here, or in the Timeless skin? Pinging Izno, who seems to know about CSS whenever there is a question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it for this template, but I have a feeling that if this class is used elsewhere, it might be causing similar problems with the Timeless skin. Maddy from Celeste, can you please verify that the above-linked articles look better for you now? – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Timeless treats toccolours exactly the same as .toc class (and sets display:table). That is incorrect. toccolours should literally only set the visual style of the table of contents, not the layout styling. But honestly, toccolours class shouldn't be used here at all. It's a bad idea to copy skin dependent colours to random places in the content. So replacing it seems appropriate. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

TheDJ, you can probably thank me for noting that Timeless didn't style it at all originally. Izno (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The width is much more reasonable now, thank you!! I haven't noticed this issue on other infoboxes, but maybe it exists elsewhere too… ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  12:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This problem appears to exist in a couple dozen infoboxes. Fixing the Timeless bug that TheDJ reported seems like the best resolution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A more meaningful search. Izno (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I don't see any issues when I view a few of those pages or their testcases using Timeless. Frietjes removed the class from the problem infobox pages that appeared in the search link that I provided. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Documentation for infobox "season" and "current"

The documentation needs to indicate that "season" should have a link to the season article with the year span displayed, but "current" you don't need to provide any link just the name of the linked article. For example, in FC Barcelona:

| season = [[2021–22 La Liga|2021–22]] | current = 2022–23 FC Barcelona season

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. The documentation is not protected; you can edit it yourself. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nickname(s)

This seems to have been an issue since at least 2006, but the infobox documentation seems to be in conflict with the implementation.

The doc says

• nickname — The club's most common nickname. Extensive lists of nicknames can be discussed in the article itself and the author should use their judgement to select the most appropriate entry for this parameter.

yet the infobox itself displays: Nickname(s), implying that more than one nickname can be added. The infobox has been like this since 2005, and the documentation page created in 2007 (though I can't figure out if that was somewhere else first). Given someone has gone through and removed lots of lists of nicknames, then which is correct? Spike 'em (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Improve mobile view

I made use of TemplateStyles to improve home colours, away colours and third colours area, so in this area the content alignment looks consistent between desktop and mobile view. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 17 May 2023

Description of suggested change: To comply with WP:ENGVAR, the short description generator needs to be fixed. Made the change in the sandbox.

Diff:

−

{{short description|Football club|noreplace}}

+

{{short description|{{#if:{{{American|}}}|Soccer|Football}} club|noreplace}}

SounderBruce 08:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)