Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC on Honours section

I am procedurally closing this expired RfC. I listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and an admin declined the close request with the comment "No request from participants. Discussion is stale and changes have already been made to the page as a result." There is more context for the declined close request here.

If any editor would like to close the RfC, they can replace this procedural close with their close. If any editor would like this RfC to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, they can undo this procedural close and make a close request at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

There has been a discussion on the WikiProject talk page regarding the layout of the "Honours" section in association football player pages. Input from other users would be appreciated, as consensus has yet to be reached. Thanks, Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the section above, Walter Görlitz and I have discussed this issue, without (basically) any intervention from other users. The proposals are the following:

1. Rename section into "Honours and achievements", as other individual accolades also fall into this section
2. Divide the section into subsections (sub heading 1): Club, International, Individual, Records
3. Divide the subsections into: name of clubs/national teams for "Club" and "International", "Award" and "Performances" under "Individual", name of team under "Records" (difference between award and performance is that the first is something "subjective", such as a Team of the Season or Balon d'Or, while the second is "objective", such as a Golden Boot or player with most assists). All these subsections (e.g. "Award" or the name of the club) are written in bold.
4. Write the honour under a bullet point, and then the text "Winner" (in the case of team titles), in bold, in an bullet point underneath (I would personally not add the runners-up titles, but adding them wouldn't be too much of a problem to me)
5. Write the number of times the title has been won in parenthesis, regardless of the amount won, after the word "Winner", and before the colon, in the following manner:

• League name
  • Winner (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15

1. Order honours in the following manner: Global, continental, national: e.g. Club World Cup --> Champions League --> Domestic League
2. Order national honours in the following manner: League --> Domestic Cup --> League Cup --> Super Cup

This is how the section should look:

Club
Club 1

• Global title
  • Winner (1): 2015
• Continental title
  • Winner (2): 2010–11, 2014–15
  • Runners-up (1): 2012–13
• League title
  • Winner (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15
  • Runner-up (1): 2015–16
• Domestic cup
  • Winner (2): 2010–11, 2011–12
  • Runner-up (3): 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15
• League cup
  • Winner (6): 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  • Runner-up (1): 2015
• Super Cup
  • Winner (5): 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  • Runner-up (2): 2009, 2015

Club 2
etc.
International
National team U19

• U19 championship
  • Winner (1): 2008

National team

• World Cup
  • Winner (1): 2010
  • Runner up (2): 2014, 2018
• Continental cup
  • Winner (4): 2009, 2011, 2013, 2017
  • Runner-up (1): 2015

Individual
Awards

• League best player of the season (3): 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14
• League team of the season (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15

Performances

• League top-goalscorer (4): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14
• Super Cup top assist provider (1): 2011–12

Records
Club 2

• Club 2 top goalscorer: 100 goals
• Club 2 all-time appearance holder: 200 appearances

National team

• National team top goalscorer: 70 goals

These are my thoughts, with Walter Görlitz having slightly different ides on specific things. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, no <big> templates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I used <big> instead of ===Sub-heading 1=== just for a visual representation. We would use a sub-heading in the actual section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ah oops, didn't notice that it all fell under a single statement. I've taken care of it now. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I would support this if the order went Domestic-Continental-International for club teams, and listed the senior national team honours above youth team honours. – PeeJay 18:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ironic. That is the order that fought for that initially started this RfC. Not sure senior before junior makes sense if we are going chronologically ascending though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the party but I think the change just made to the template ia an unreadable mess. Spelling out "winner" is redundant, so is including "(1)" for winning a single honour. I'm also very at odds with all the formatting in bold, it should be limited to headings and not be used for bullet points which is poor style. All of this makes the section overwhelming and unnecessarily hard to parse. Changing the heading to "Honours and achievements" makes sense to me.

Also, while I realise it's been a while since the last comment here (24 February) should one assume a proposed change has gained the approval of the community when merely two other editors – have I missed more?, I count PeeJay and Walter – have agreed? Robby.is.on (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: so you would remove "winner" and "runner-up", removing the bold, and keep just the name of the title itself? For example, "Premier League (2): 2010, 2011" (therefore not displaying the runner-up titles)? I would include (1) for one honour, just from a visual point of view. It becomes much easier to see "(5), (3), (1), (1)" at first glance, therefore seeing that a team has won "5 leagues, 3 cups, 1 league cup and 1 super cup", instead of "(5), (3)". What do you think? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As for your second comment, I have just been WP:BOLD. No one disagreed, so I just went with the (minor) consensus. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

We didn't have a lot of people participating, so I don't know how sticky the consensus will be. I'm still unconvinced we need the physical headings, but do like the fact that the order is defined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd remove "winner", remove the bold and place both honours won and runners-up honours in the same line separated by a semi-colon. For example: "* Premier League (2): 2010–11, 2011–12; runners-up 2008–09". I've seen this done in most articles in recent years and it is clear and concise at the same time.

I'm not sure the numbers are necessary at all. Zinedine_Zidane#Honours_and_achievements is very readable.

Perhaps this RFC could do with a plug at the main WP:FOOTY Talk page? I would have thought people like @GiantSnowman:, @Struway2:, @Mattythewhite: – just to name a few – would have an opinion to share. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It 'is listed. I haven't commented as I have no view. GiantSnowman 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

To be fair Zidane has only won maximum 2 of the same title. See Gianluigi Buffon#Honours, for example, who has won 9 (or 11, depends how you see it) Serie A titles, 4 Coppe Italia and 5 Supercoppe. In my opinion, either we put numbers to all the titles, or we don't at all. I don't agree with putting the brackets from 2+, but not for 1. 2 titles are just as (un)readable as 1, so might as well put the brackets irregardless of the number. As for the rest, I agree with you. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The number of wins was a previous consensus that we should honour. Linked above. 14:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, PeeJay2K3, Robby.is.on, GiantSnowman, Struway2, and Mattythewhite: do you all agree with the current formatting? (currently displayed on the page). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if I was not pinged, I still think the the number of wins is unnecessary. --Jaellee (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Win count is unnecessary for both players and teams. Not sure club should go before international, but do agree with the ordering inside of those. If we're OK with club before international, I wouldn't complain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

As long as we either display all wins in brackets (1 included), or none at all, I'm happy either way. As for club/international, I think the fact that players play exponentially more games for clubs rather than national teams makes me think that we should put club above international (the same way we have club career, then international career; or club statistics, then international statistics; or club above national team in the infobox). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Having a recommended order is better than not having one: I'd prefer club before international, per Nehme above. As to formatting, it'd be easier to form an opinion with realistic examples: club and competition names (real or imaginary) and all the formatting (bolding, wikilinking, etc) you intend to be used. Otherwise it's hard to tell what we're having an opinion on. Personally, I'm happy with the Zidane approach: no bolding, other than what comes with the headings or pseudo-headings; wins and runners-ups on the same line; wikilink the seasons (if notable) and the first use of each competition. The only difference is the bracketed numbers: I used to be in the "5 or more" camp, and still think that's fine for those of us with good eyesight, but for those who haven't, bracketed numbers might make it easier to follow. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, although I'm not certain, that most screen readers (used by the legally blind) will actually count the number of items if a list format is used, but that's an even greater deviation from current formatting, and I don't think any sport does so. It has become more common in the music project though, particularly in album track listings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

They do if the underlying HTML is properly structured, but I can't see us mandating hlist format or whatever anytime soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbers in brackets?

Yes, keep numbers in brackets irregardless of amount of titles won

• Serie A (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up: 2014–15, 2015–16
• Coppa Italia (1): 2011–12; runner-up: 2012–13, 2016–17

• Yes, as the reader immediately sees how many titles a player has won. Even for 1 title (see example above where, with the runner-up titles, the number of titles won isn't immediately recognizable). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - Even if it is easy to tell when only a few items are in the list, why shouldn't we add three characters to make it easier for a reader to have an at-a-glance idea of how many titles the player won? And as Nehme1499 points out, it makes it more difficult to instantly tell how many items are in the list when runners-up are included (even if that is against my better judgement). – PeeJay 22:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, for the reasons given above, but perhaps only if greater than one. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @PeeJay2K3 is offended that I modified the proposal above so that second-place finished were consistent in showing count. Sorry for offending the editor but WTF? It was a clear omission the proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyway it's not important, since consensus clearly seems to be steering towards not including runner-up titles at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Agree that consensus is currently against parenthetical counts. This isn't an official RfC though. Where's the ID? This appears to be a proposal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
      • EA7A75E. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not offended, so don't even bother trying to make this a "me" issue. You are not the proposer of this RfC, so it is not up to you to make modifications to it. It is misleading and also inappropriate considering people have already !voted. – PeeJay 20:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

No, never put numbers in brackets

• Serie A: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up: 2014–15, 2015–16
• Coppa Italia: 2011–12; runner-up: 2012–13, 2016–17

• No Psychology tells us that humans can easily identify seven objects without difficulty. I'm sorry I don't have my introductory psychology textbook to offer support for this. We don't need help counting. See The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. And furthermore, if it is determined to be included, the count should go after the colon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Psychology tells us that humans can easily identify seven *simple* objects without difficulty. A list of digits is not seven simple objects, it is a string of about 40 characters that you have to look fairly closely at to discern the demarcation between them. Also, the count should go before the colon. – PeeJay 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Of course it is, particularly when linked, and adding commas and spaced between them makes it even more facile. Each link is recognized as an object. As for counts, my physics text was clear that counts should go after colons and I lost marks for doing it the other way around. Unfortunately, that was the school's textbook so I cannot cite it. Why do you think they should go before the colon? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• No most players win a particular honour not more then for example five times and in most cases even less often (at least in the articles I watch). So there will be many instances with the numbers (1) or (2) which looks ridiculous (as if we would not have confidence in the reader to count that far). I would agree to have numbers in cases where a player really won a honour more often than a given threshold but given the choice between having no numbers and numbers everywhere I vote for no numbers. --Jaellee (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
• No The readers can count (Majority at least if not close to all). Only if a player wins something often (not sure about the exact number) it CAN be used. Kante4 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• No (soft): as per the above comments, I would say they should only be used above a threshold. Obviously that would be arbitrary but to me it's when it becomes difficult for the reader to tell at a glance. My opinion would be that is around 4. I would suggest no brackets for 4 and fewer, but have them for 5 and more. Crowsus (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we were to introduce a threshold, then we should put numbers in brackets irregardless on the number. What I mean is, if someone won the league 10 times, the cup 4 times and the super cup 1 times, we would put (10), (4) AND (1). While if someone has won the league once, the cup twice and the supercup once, we wouldn't display them at all. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Which is why most people are saying not numbers are needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would personally keep the numbers irregardless. But, IF we were to establish a threshold (be it 4, 5, or whatever), THEN we could compromise in the way I stated above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, if its only Yes or No, my vote is for none at all. Crowsus (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• No Per Jaellee. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• No. Doesn't add much value and the number of titles can usually be counted easily. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No Per Mattythewhite.--EchetusXe 14:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Runner-up titles?

Yes, keep the runner-up titles

• Serie A (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up (2): 2014–15, 2015–16
• Serie A: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18; runner-up: 2014–15, 2015–16
• (vote above for brackets or no brackets)

• Comment I think nominees for awards such as the Oscars/Grammys/Nobel Prize etc, and Olympic silver/bronze medallists may not share your opinion that they wouldn't / shouldn't even mention the fact of coming close to winning, even though they are also 'losers'. And as far as Wikipedia goes, award nominees and medallists are listed on the articles relating to the individuals/teams and the events concerned, and back in football the losing finalist teams in cups are also listed on articles for those competitions, of course they are, you can't have a final without two teams, not to do so would be stupid. So I don't see why the participants in those finals should be disregarded when it comes to listing those participations. Simply saying "they're losers, losers suck!" is immature, small-minded and disrespectful. Crowsus (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Exactly what Crowsus said, I feel offended that one would suggest runner-up in an FA Cup is not worthy. @Nehme1499: We already note cup medal runners up, but your title of Title is vague, we've always treated league and cups differently. There is simply no point in an RfC when we already have a working established practice that most editors agree on. Govvy (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Consensus appears to be that bronze or sliverat the World Cup could be mentioned; particularly if the player was not involved on a gold medal team. However an annual tournament, such as the FA cup, is not as notable. I don't think a sourced second-place standing, again if there is no first place finish, would not be inappropriate. The discussion here has primarily been about should we have runner-up entries like the one displayed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Govvy: as I stated above, I'm not against specific situations. If Atalanta were to reach the Champions League final, all their players would have "runner-up" for the 2019-20 Champions League without any shadow of a doubt. Same goes for the 2 cases I cited above. But what's the point of showing a runner-up for annual domestic competitions, as Walter points out? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The FA Cup is an historic competition, like many other cup competitions, many footballers have earned a runners-up medal and we have a duty to honour those footballers by correctly showing that in articles. I am also starting to feel this being rather toxic and you are lacking duty to what is true. To devoid an article of correct information is not only offensive in my view, but sadly will make wikipedia less of what is already is. I simply will not allow such action to be taken, and too suggest that players are losers, simply because they failed to win the cup even know being in a final. That really makes me feel sorry for this project. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I've never been toxic, nor have I suggested that "runners-up are losers". There is a thing called prose, where details about the player can be found. We don't need to cram everything in the honours section, the same way we don't display cup appearances in the infobox, while having a more detailed "Club statistics" section further down the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes? What this vote on is unclear. No to second-place in the league, yes to cup runners-up medalists and to automatic promotions and play-off winners.--EchetusXe 14:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with EchetusXe. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

No, don't display the runner-up titles

• Serie A (5): 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18
• Serie A: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2017–18
• (vote above for brackets or no brackets)

• No, no need to display runner-up titles. Best to stay consistent and just keep the winning titles. An exception can be made for certain situations, such as a Spurs player being a runner-up in the Champions League, or a Croatian player in the World Cup (given that those teams would very rarely repeat that feat). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No! We're number two! Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No, unless finishing as runner-up results in promotion or a medal is awarded. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No as per Nehme1499. --Jaellee (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No to leagues, because you don't get a medal for being second in those, but Yes for cup finals as the losing team does get a medal. Other than when the player or club has won that honour so many times that adding a losing appearance would serve little purpose (I would say 3+ is a reasonable threshold). Readers do want to know when a player was involved in a final, even if they didn't win it, particularly if that occurred several times. Sometimes that doesn't fit well in the prose or editors can't be bothered wording and sourcing it fully, so Honours section is useful for that. Crowsus (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - Runner-up is just first of the losers. I can't think of any circumstance where listing the number of times a player was runner-up in a competition would be relevant. Major international tournaments, perhaps, but even then it's possible to just mention that in the article prose. – PeeJay 19:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• No - Can only voice @PeeJay2K3's comment. I wouldn't list in my curriculum vitae that I was the second best at something. MYS77 ^✉ 20:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What are you people doing? Please do not remove cup medals from player articles, even if it's a runner-up medal. This is sick practice here and I refuse to vote. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Govvy: why don't you vote yes? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Govvy: Please read all the comments. If you vote yes then that's 5 votes to keep runners-up medals from cup finals and 5 to remove them.--EchetusXe 14:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to everything Crowsus said! Govvy (talk) 16:01, 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.

Achievements?

Since when did Honours sections include achievements? I take it this is where the performance-related stuff and records have come from? I see there is an archived discussion above alluding to it, although nobody actually seemed to support the idea, yet it's been incorporated in the Player MoS. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: @Robby.is.on stated, on 8 March, "changing the heading to "Honours and achievements" makes sense to me." Also, on 9 March, both I and Robby pinged you (and other editors), asking if the format presented was ok. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

But was consensus garnered on this change? Approval from one or two editors isn't grounds for paving the way for sweeping changes to potentially all football biographies. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The section should be titled 'Honours' only. GiantSnowman 16:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. But I'd welcome some arguments for and against… Robby.is.on (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I had brought the discussion to the attention of the main project talk page. Anyway, my argument for keeping "and achievements" is that we also include "non-tangible honours" such as "National team all-time goalscorer" and "Premier League top assist provider". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the section should just remain as honours. Including achievements is superfluous. Maybe in other languages, achievements means something different than in the English language, but including any individual honours covers this. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: "All-time national team goalscorer", for example, isn't really an honour, rather an achievement. If we want to only add "and achievements" to players who have at least a "record" or "individual performance" (such as "2019 league top assist provider"), and leave "Honours" to everyone else, I'm ok with that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Individual records and achievements are individual/personal honours. The word honours covers both club and national team titles and individual achievements. It's equivalent to re-naming the "Career statistics" section to "Career statistics and matches played" - it means the same thing but just using different words. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that last month, I had changed the section to Honours, specifying that, in case the section were to also include "records" or "performances", "and achievements" can be added. @Struway2: reverted me (see dif) stating that there is no consensus to do so. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the background information @Nehme1499:. And what was the basis of even adding "Achievements" in the first place @Struway2:? As far as I can gleam from this talk page and from the Football Commons talk page where this argument was brought up, there was no consensus to ever even add the word "Achievements". It feels like it is just redundant/repetitive and adds unneeded wording. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't actually see any reason for my reverting the heading. I'm guessing I misread the diff, and thought I was just reverting the wording

Note that:

• The section can be renamed "Honours and achievements" in the event records and/or performances are also available

for which I saw no consensus. Sorry. Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "and achievements", without adding the notes. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thank you all. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)