Talk:2007–08 Football League Cup

Round name
I'd like to propose the change from Round One, Round Two and so on, to First Round, Second Round and so, as it is called in the official web site. --ClaudioMB 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you mention it, I think you're right. Falastur2 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tables

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think it would be nice if there could be a table format for the results, rather than the lists we currently have. If you look at the UEFA Cup page, you'll see a good example. Unfortunately, I'm not good enough at edits to do it, and would rather not practice on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.127.50 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. glennb28 t • c  17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please help make the third round results look like the first and second round results we have now? I would but I'm not very good at editing 71.36.181.218 16:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I beleive that in the latter stages of the competition it is better to have a bit more detail. However, if the consensus decides that a table would be better until the very much latter stages of the round, I would be happy to do this. glennb28 t • c  20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for conformity and making things look good, but I have to agree that in the later stages, the extra detail is useful. However, I would also concede that the earlier stages contain so many clubs that using the detailed style through the whole article is unnecessary and perhaps rather too much of a waste of space compared to the more concise form currently in use for those rounds.
 * If we could find/make a table style that incorporated all the useful information of the detailed style in use, and the neatness and conciseness of the table in use for the first rounds then I would go for it, though. Falastur2 21:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a regular contributer for this article but I'd like to just give an idea. Maybe it is possible join the best of two options: a layout that shows all matches in a glance (like the one used on the first and second rounds), and the details of any match (used in the third round). The details of each match could be hidden and shown as the reader wants, like this example (should be improved). It also eliminates those lines showing who won in extra-time.--ClaudioMB 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've come up with a proposal based on the idea above by ClaudioMB. It's here. glennb28 t • c  11:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not bad. Could you make the goalscorers only appear when the "Show" button is clicked, too? Falastur2 13:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How's this one? glennb28 t • c 13:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I can create the table in it's current format:
 * Better, thanks. Sorry if it seems like I'm constantly asking more, but is it possible to fit some of the extra info (i.e. the scorers, basically) in the team columns, as opposed to the notes column on the edge? Or is that one of the constraints of the show/hide function/would that require far too many show/hide things? Falastur2 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I beleive this would require a show/hide parameter for each team, ie, three on a single row. I have also made a proposal for the same style for the fourth round fixtures, here. glennb28 t • c  14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fb_report template was made for match report about one team, mostly used in a team season's article. So, I've created a Fb_report2 that is a bit different from Fb_report to make the table's code clearer. I already changed in the current proposal. Also, it could be changed as necessary to fit the needs of a table used in this article. For example, it's possible to place the teams' information side by side.--ClaudioMB 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that ClaudioMB! That's a massive help.


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

!Home team !Score1 !Away team !Additional info
 * -valign="top"
 * Arsenal||2 - 0||Newcastle United||
 * }
 * or put the scorers below the relevant teams:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

!Home team !Score1 !Away team !Additional info
 * -valign="top"
 * Arsenal
 * 2 - 0||Newcastle United
 * }
 * The first format is previewed here, and the second format here. glennb28 t • c  10:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first format is previewed here, and the second format here. glennb28 t • c  10:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the Fb report2 to allow this:


 * --ClaudioMB 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another possible option could be this:

--ClaudioMB 21:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Looks better in IE than in Firefox. --ClaudioMB 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the second-to-last one. What do you think yourself? Falastur2 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The second-to-last one looks very nice. The main problem is the need of 3 clicks to see everything. Also, both teams are bold. The last one has a too many blank space (in Firefox) that I'm still trying to find a way to eliminate it. Both are good and bad at the same time. The perfect one will be one that looks like the second-to-last one with one click. That will need a bit of brain storm to come out :-). Maybe in the future. So, I have no preference between both, if the 3 clicks problem could be solved, then that will be my choice. --ClaudioMB 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The best I could come with so far is this:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"

!width="180"|Home team !width="50" |Score1 !width="180"|Away team !width="215"|Report  
 * Arsenal
 * 2 - 0
 * Newcastle United
 * colspan=4|
 * colspan=4|
 * colspan=4|
 * Arsenal
 * 2 - 0
 * Newcastle United
 * colspan=4|
 * colspan=4|
 * colspan=4|

I could make a template of this to require enter only the information.--ClaudioMB 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * }

I hope I'm helping and not annoying anyone. But here another possible version: {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center" !width="180"|Home team !width="50" |Score1 !width="180"|Away team !width="215"|Report  
 * -style="height:60px"
 * colspan=4|
 * -style="height:60px"
 * colspan=4|

We could called the first four: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. The last two: 2.1 and 2.2. The code will disappear when using templates, only the information will be part of the article. A 2.3 version will be with rows with a regular height (what I don't know if it's possible). But, any improvement in the future will not require to change the article, because will be made in the template. Regards. --ClaudioMB 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * }


 * Personally, I prefer 1.3 (20:46, 7 October 2007) and 2.1 (08:20, 8 October 2007). glennb28 t • c  21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As do I. Is there any way of cutting out all the extra blank lines underneath the goalscorers/other info in 2.1? It takes up so much space... Falastur2 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Version 1.3.1
Here is an improved 1.3 version, with templates. I think it looks good, but with 3 clicks. Please, feel free to tip any possible improvement. Later, I'll improve the 2.1 version. --ClaudioMB 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 

Code:

P.S. Now it looks good on both Firefox and IE.--ClaudioMB 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also, it could be used as soon as wanted, if later there is any improvement or even a change of layout, the parameters will be the same. That's one of the great advantage of using templates, we enter the information in the article independent of how it will look like.--ClaudioMB 23:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot Claudio! I've used this template and inserted all the details back on the proposal page. This looks like the perfect version! Once again, well done Claudio! glennb28 t • c  18:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. By the way, looking all the matches in the proposal, I think the goals list could be aligned left instead of center. I've changed it, if it's not good, please just change  from left to center in Template:Fb report team.--ClaudioMB 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Version 2.2.1
Finally, I've got the version I was looking for: just one click. Look at the bottom of proposal page. --ClaudioMB 05:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Glennb28, I added it in the proposal to make it easy to compare both. I hope that was okay.--ClaudioMB 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The parameters are exactly the same of the 1.3.1 version.--ClaudioMB 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, it is open for any suggestion to improve it. --ClaudioMB 06:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. No more P.S. :-) (I'm sorry, I cannot resist a joke) --ClaudioMB 06:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot ClaudioMB! This version is even better than the last. This is just perfect. Congratulations! glennb28 t • c  11:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the article to include the new 2.2.1 template. Thanks for all the work ClaudioMB!    glennb28   t/ c    18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Recent change (Underdiscussion section)
I was approached by User:Falastur2 today about an edit I made towards the end of last month. The edit in question involved changing the results tables from one style (which was evidently discussed here, but I never saw) to the style used in previous seasons' Football League Cup articles and also the FA Cup seasons articles. The reason I did this was, first, for standardisation. The previous seasons' and FA Cup articles all followed a certain standard, and this article stuck out like a sore thumb compared to them. My second reason was purely personal, though I'm sure some people will agree with me. That reason was that I felt the "new" style was clumsy and over-elaborate. The font looked odd compared to the rest of the article, and the table itself looked like footballbox and the above tables had been forcefully mushed together. Furthermore, the show/hide toggle makes it look tacky. If a better version could be created, then perhaps I could be swayed, but at the minute I really think the pre-PeeJay version just looked a bit ugly. – PeeJay 14:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with User:PeeJay2K3. First, there is no need for standardization with previous years. Doing so, will make improvements very difficult. Second, I don't see anything odd about the font used in the tables, it is exactly the same one used in the whole article. Third, I consider the show/hide toggle a good feature for an article like this one, because makes the article cleaner (using footballbox makes the article clutter) and because I consider that most of the readers don't want to see details of all matches, they want to see results and details from some matches. So, I'm proposing to use the table that show/hide the details like in this version Football League Cup 2007-08 at 14:40, 24 January 2008--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that there was nothing wrong with the old style, IMO. The use of tables for the earlier rounds was neat and got all the relevant information across in a concise manner, while the use of the footballbox template was more appropriate for the latter stages as all rounds from the quarter-finals onwards usually attract the most attention. Like I said, if you can find a better way to present the information, then I would be more receptive, but the one you proposed above isn't it, IMO. – PeeJay 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)