Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force

Discussion on an update to the club seasons template

There is a discussion open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Improving accessibility in club seasons articles: A proposed template update with implications for the WP:WikiProject Football/Club seasons template. Your input would be very welcome. —Domeditrix (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Club seasons template

The existing club seasons template could clearly use a lot of work (though it is still a lot better than a lot of existing club season articles). Others have previously mentioned that we may be better off creating a template from an article recognised as 'good', though even among these articles there is little consistency. Comparing the 2011–12 York City F.C. season article (my personal favorite) to the 2011–12 Sheffield United F.C. season article, the first consists largely of well-sourced prose (per WP:NSEASONS), does not WP:OVERLINK, has comparatively few tables (and omits some information such as player / team nationality, squad numbers of new signings), does not use collapsible boxes to display results, doesn't use flagicons at all outside the squad statistics box (I think the Sheffield article may verge on WP:FLAGCRUFT, and doesn't mention the reserve or youth sides. The York article puts information on pre-season fixtures directly following the prose, whereas the Sheffield article puts this information at the bottom of a long list of fixtures later in the article in a separate sub-section.

These can also be contrasted with another good article, that on the 2011 D.C. United season. This article covers pre-season extensively (not just fixtures), also makes heavy use of flagicons and statistics tables, and uses collapsible boxes to display match results (something I would think is contra to MOS:DONTHIDE). This article also makes much more use of colour, though at the cost of readability in some areas (at odds with MOS:CONTRAST).

As far as I'm concerned, the York City article is pretty much perfect. The only changes I would make would be to put semicolons between different scorers instead of commas, to add information where a fee is undisclosed but reported elsewhere, and to remove the league table altogether (it's too truncated to provide much content, and final league position is mentioned in the infobox – which links to the League season article containing a full table).

Before making any concrete proposals (and doing any of the real work) regarding sweeping changes to the template, I'd like to test the temperature here. What issues would you have with the adoption of a template in-line with the 2011–12 York City F.C. season article? —Domeditrix (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Status of the qualifying path of Villarreal in 2021–22 UEFA Champions League

I find it is absolutely impossible that the edit conflict could be handled so I take this issue to here. The issue about the qualifying path of the Europa League title holders Villarreal. They should haven't qualify to the UEFA Champions League if they did not win the Europa League. I think in this circumstance, Villarreal should not be make the league position last season. As it also happened in 2012–13, 2016–17 and 2017–18 season, so I removed the league position. However, @Island92: keeps reverting this idea. As it would go to 3RR I decide to take this issue to here. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

My point is that in the table each team features the league position, whether they qualified via other cup win or not. To match with it, should not Villarreal include the league position as well? Some previous editions show it, other don't. Island92 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The current format for the reigning champion guarantee starts from 2005 when Liverpool failed to qualify for the Champions League via league position and they didn't get the green light from The FA. I know you are pointing out the example for Real Madrid last decade. But afaik since 2005 non-league qualifier did not show the league position. Besides they are really not qualify to the tournament via league position. KyleRGiggs (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm totally aware that they did not qualify via league position. Indeed we read ^EL, but, personal opinion, the league position should be kept anyway. The winner of the 20-21 Champions League (Chelsea) got the right to qualify directly for the group stage of the 21-22 edition (no matter which position they finished in the league), so why do we read 4th^TH for them and cannot we read 7th^EL for Villarreal? Island92 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(4th)^TH means, they obtained two qualifying spots - 4th of the league and title holders, but only one spot could be exercised. In contrast, Villarreal just has one spot which is Europa League. That makes the difference. For last season, both Bayern Munich and Sevilla obtained two qualifying spots, same to Liverpool and Chelsea two editions ago. But this time, Villarreal didn't. KyleRGiggs (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. What had Chelsea finished (10th)^TH for instance? Wouldn't have we included the position?--Island92 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

We didn't. KyleRGiggs (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay it made worsen right now. Thank to Frankfurt. New instruction to be negotiate now. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I would have kept the league position anyway. Island92 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally opposite to your stance. But seems no one in the discussion. If the league position being kept, then UEFA Europa League and Conference League would be a big problem. CW should not be used in my opinion. All clubs need to include league position. KyleRGiggs (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

"The labels in the parentheses show how each team qualified for the place of its starting round." very explicitly isn't it? We don't need to include the league position at the very first plan. Title holder is title holder, they qualified as title holder isn't it? Why we included is just because they always have already get the qualification by league position. However, in these years, Europa League winners sometimes cannot make the Champions League qualification, and Chelsea as the title holder failed to do so once. KyleRGiggs (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)