Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present)

Change of format
What you do makes no sense, and it confirms that you are biased against me. Stop creating unnecessary edit conflicts. This has nothing to do with giving access to the readers as long it hides the penalty shoot-out etc. Why do you not start with Lebanon, United States, England, Germany, Spain's results articles instead of an article I created?--Sakiv (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I'm biased towards you, and I want to ruin your Wikipedia experience /s. Seriously though, the least of my concerns are your edits. Both have brought up valid policies, while your answer is that we are "biased". Try to bring up a policy to support your format. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are trying to be nice. This attitude will create unnecessary problems if we approach the issue in this wrong and selective way. There should be an extensive discussion on all football results articles, including clubs, not just national teams. If you and your friends continue in this way you will face much opposition because you are interpreting this on national teams only and some user's creations.--Sakiv (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're talking as if there were some sort of "conspiracy" towards you... There is already consensus towards club season articles actually, this is the point. See WikiProject Football/Club seasons, and many (too many) discussions on WP:FOOTY about how to display matches (if through collapsible boxes or tables). The consensus has always been to use tables. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely dislike continued edit conflicts because they cause a toxic atmosphere between editors and a lack of cooperation. There is already an agreed proposal that is part of WikiProject Football regarding the use of a footballbox collapsible to display historic team results. It is even linked here.--Sakiv (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You linked to the national team article, which is different from the national team results page. Nehme1499 (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are manipulating policies and refer only to those that appeal to you. There is no policy or guideline dealing with national teams' results. You cannot prove otherwise. The debate between us seems to be heading to an impasse.--Sakiv (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No manipulation going on here. I have cited the same policies two other users have cited. How many have you cited? Exactly: none. Not really an impasse is it? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 22:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is only your opinion. Again, this has to be discussed extensively to see what should be used tables or boxes on all football articles not just Argentina. For instance, you did not and won't change any other article's format except this article that I have worked on because you are afraid of any other user's reaction. Right?--Sakiv (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I saw this listed at Third Opinion. I don't have an opinion about the correct outcome, but I just want to throw in a bit of information that is often misunderstood that might help sort out the discussion here. It is official Wikipedia policy that standards set at a WikiProject such as WP:FOOTY are not in any way rules that must be followed in articles. It says in the Consensus policy:


 * Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.

Also see the WikiProject Council guideline page (which is also an official guideline for the encyclopedia) which says:


 * However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay.

Thus, unless the standards set by a WikiProject (such as those set by the WikiProject Council) have been formally approved as a policy or guideline, they have no authority to require something to be done one way or another on an article page within the subject-matter scope of a WikiProject and each article stands on its own with all matters to be decided by consensus.

Perhaps with that additional guidance this can be worked out between you. I've not looked to see if what you're discussing has been approved somewhere as a policy or guideline, but if it hasn't then it must just be worked out like any other proposed change to an article, through discussion and consensus. If that doesn't work, then another try at dispute resolution may be in order. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC) PS: I've not removed the 3O listing, but left it up in case some other 3O volunteer wants to parse this out and offer a more substantial opinion.
 * And I saw this listed at WP:ANRFC with Requests for Comment, but this was never tagged as a formal RfC as far as I can tell. I've marked it for removal there, but am willing to stick around and adjudicate this as an uninvolved admin., could you try to summarize this dispute? There's only so much I or another admin can glean from the page history. The discussion above has much more heat than light. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I posted it there since the dispute is between me and only one user as we were the only editors who attempted to find a satisfactory solution. TransporterMan mentioned several important and correct points above.--Sakiv (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Though unstructured discussions can be listed at ANRFC, it's better for formal discussions where an uninvolved editor can step in, read the discussion, and come to a conclusion. I pinged all the names I saw to be safe, but if this is just between two editors, that's fine too. Just, for my sake or another admin's, what precisely is the dispute? --BDD (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the format of this page to meet wiki policies including MOS:LIST and WP:ACCESS but Sakiv has been unwilling to accept that established policies should take precedence when deciding the most appropriate article format. The most commonly used format on articles like this doesn't meet the established policies and I summed up my views in a previous discussion at WP:FOOTY which is available here. Unfortunately, it didn't gain views from any other editors than the three of us but I feel that was due to fatigue given this and similar issues have been raised frequently and usually result in the same consensus that we should follow the established polices I've mentioned. Hope that helps. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a recurring problem and I told the editors that it should be discussed with the community and not separately with just one or two editors. It concerns the correct format for displaying club and national team matches. There is a clear contrast between the two, and they both come out with somewhat convincing arguments but with a wide difference. Whereas, the party who prefers to use template:Footballbox collapsible that allows the reader to learn all necessary information quickly and smoothly has a more wise argument. This is because the box is considered to be more modern and can be developed in the future and is compatible with its twin, the template:Footballbox used in the FIFA World Cups and the Champions League. As for the tables, they hide vital information, such as the penalty shoot-out, colored cards as in club articles, I mean, and even notes that are placed in the event that the match is postponed, canceled, played without an audience, etc. It is worth noting that the manual style page creator uses the box in articles he has created, so how to convince other users that the tables are the most accurate.--Sakiv (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We can probably agree that discussion with more participation is better than one with limited participation. Listing at WP:ANRFC was a step in the right direction, then, but putting the cart before the horse since there was never an RfC tag or any other measure (if I'm understanding correctly) to get more input. Normally I'd recommend contacting the WikiProject; I'm surprised a project as active as FOOTY didn't have more to say.
 * So let's see if I correctly understand the dispute. Nehme1499 and Stevie fae Scotland prefer the article as it's formatted now, per ACCESS and LIST, while Sakiv, you prefer the project-specific templates, and to not consider this a list article? Was the WT:FOOTY discussion in January the only time this question has come up? --BDD (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I may not have taken all the necessary procedures to list this dispute at WP:ANRFC, but it is essential that this dispute ends with a conclusion by a neutral administrator or editor. I don’t know if the continuation of the discussion on WikiProject will solve the problem because it was discussed before.--Sakiv (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the first time. There have been similar discussions before, the most recent ones I was involved in are here, here and here. The first two are only really passing references to this specific issue and the third, from June 2019, was following a dispute at 1873–74 Dumbarton F.C. season where I've left the page in the format which doesn't meet the policies despite consensus being reached to follow LIST and ACCESS because of a similar disagreement to this one. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for your information. I still don't think a close is exactly what is called for here, but I can offer my third opinion. The article has stood as is for almost two weeks now. It's true that the article is not a formal list beginning with "List of...", but MOS:LIST is fairly clear that it applies to lists within articles—such as a list of results. The best way forward may be to maintain the article as is. Discuss further with the WikiProject if desired, in which case this article can stand as an example. Per TransporterMan's good points above, there may be conflicts between the project's preferences and wider policies and guidelines, which would need to be considered.
 * Does this seem like a reasonable way forward? --BDD (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The page remained like this because I did not want to escalate things, and by the way, the page was in its original format for more than three months without any objection until Stevie fae Scotland came to change it without a legal basis.--Sakiv (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that does sound like a reasonable way forward BDD, thanks for your help. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose your arguments because there is nothing in that policy mentioning the necessity of using tables in the results of football teams and not templates. This article is not on a list, but it is like the Argentina national team or managers of the Argentina national team articles. BDD provides just an opinion as any Wikipedia editor and we haven't gotten to anything yet so you don't have to continue to ignore the discussion because you keep updating results articles using tables that ignore penalties and goals of the opposing team. This is not an issue involving WP:ACCESS when you leave the penalties and opposition scorers.--Sakiv (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm replying again because I don't think, even after BDD and TransporterMan have offered neutral third opinions, that you'll listen. As BDD said, this is a list article and tables comply with MOS:LIST, footballbox templates don't. WP:WHENTABLE specifically mentions lists of sports results as an appropriate use of tables. Just because you like something or "strongly oppose" something on Wikipedia doesn't mean it should/should not be done that way, that's why we have policies and guidelines. Throughout this whole process, you haven't brought up a single one to support your argument and you are the only person opposing the change. Sometimes we don't get our own way on Wikipedia, you don't have to like it, just accept the change and move on. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sakiv, sometimes refraining from what you think is the right change so as to not escalate things is the very essence of being a Wikipedian! You sought outside opinions rather than edit warring, and that's a very good thing. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it makes sense to consider the opinion of contributors who will really be interested in these articles, rather than the opinion of a user who has little to no interest in national teams and club season articles. By the way, we didn't obtain community consenus in any of the three discussions Stevie fae Scotland referred to.--Sakiv (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly something to consider. I would be thinking of readers before editors of any sort, but editors matter too, and no one wins if editors get burnt out over disputes. And as they say, decisions are made by those who show up. I'd expect engaged editors to prevail in the long run. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current table-only version (as opposed to the Football box template version, which also renders as a table) has had information removed. For example, in the 8 October 2020 match, the version using the standard footballbox template lists the time of each goal and the referee for the match. If Football box collapsible, which renders as a table and can be displayed in full by default using collapsible, is objectionable for some reason, it needs to be addressed at a larger discussion, because it is used in 18,000 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * take a look at this current FL nomination, which addresses this exact problem regarding tables v the collapsible template. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 17:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As with this talk page section, it is unclear in that discussion which part of WP:ACCESS is being referred to. And as with there, until today, collapsible was not brought up as a possible fix. Would using collapsible satisfy your WP:ACCESS objections? If not, which specific text from WP:ACCESS are you citing as a barrier to using Football box collapsible in articles? Please quote it using tq. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to make it clear that I am not the one raising ACCESS concerns: other users are. I just linked to that ongoing discussion as I felt it was relevant. I think it would be a good idea for you to raise the proposal of the collapsible parameter there (I can't see any issues offhand, maybe the users in that discussion find something "wrong" with it?). <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 19:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly it was to do with how screen readers are able to read a table vs a football box template and how the pre-collapsed nature of the football box template acts as a barrier to information as it hides most of it. I've never used a screen reader so it took someone pointing it out to me at least three years ago although I don't actually know what the difference is. The bigger issue in this context though is MOS:LIST as the football box template wasn't designed to be used 200 or 300 times in a single article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * wasn't designed to be used 200 or 300 times in a single article? According to whom? Please link to a relevant talk page discussion about the template's design. Again, a template that is used in 18,000 articles is likely to be fine, but you may be correct. If you have an objection to its use, the place to object is not here at the talk page of a single article or at a single FL nomination page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have an objection to using the football box templates appropriately and on many of those 18,000 pages I have no doubt that they are used appropriately but for list articles they don't meet the agreed policy MOS:LIST. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I don't have an issue with the referee or goal times being included. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Jonesey95's proposition.--Sakiv (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally against with this change of format. I wonder why things are changed out of the blue without a reliable reason. The entire table sounds too elementary for a reader. Come on guys, you can do better, following the normal style used in Germany national football team results (2020–present).--Island92 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "normal style". See Wales national football team results (1876–1899), Wales national football team results (1900–1914), Scotland national football team results (1872–1914), all of which are Featured Articles. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'd rather "read" the style being used in Germany national football team results (2020–present) because I'm so used to looking at it when I update these sections, such as Italy national football team results (2010–present).--Island92 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And I personally agree with you. However, they seem to violate ACCESS. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * the format at the Italy and Germany articles is very difficult to follow at a glance, and I personally much prefer this. And besides, MOS:LIST and WP:ACCESS are both Wikipedia guidelines which the football box collapsible format violates. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

RFC:Format of Table
<div class="boilerplate vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

No Consensus to switch from template to table, unless the table is edited to include all the info presented in the template. (I'm aware that someone in the meantime has boldly switched the page to the table format. I will revert to the previous version.) Aesthetics/"it looks better" had no weight in this close. Though WP:ACCESS should be kept in mind. I also read over the various linked-to discussions, but this discussion is more recent and had broader participation. - jc37 13:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC) -

Which of the two formats, known as the Template or the Table, should be used to list the team and results? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Template

Table In the Survey, specify the Template, or the Table, with a very brief supporting statement. Do not reply to the posts of other editors in the Survey. You may reply to each other in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Table - Per consensus established here, here and here as well as this featured list nomination. Fits with MOS:LIST and WP:WHENTABLE, I could go on. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table as per all the previous other consensuses on the matter, which have already established a clear consensus for table format. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table - consensus at WT:FOOTY is clear on this subject, as is WP:ACCESS, MOS:LIST and WP:WHENTABLE. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table I don't know about any consensus at WT:FOOTY, but the table just looks better and is easier to read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template I really do not understand the entrenched need of some users to change common and functional things. And especially when it comes to change for the worse. The template is first and foremost much more informative (goals, cards and many other details) but also more aesthetically pleasing. Penepi (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template Everything is fine with the table except for the goals. You can't just say "Argentina scorers: xy, za". Absolutely horrible. Mohammad (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table - I'm yet to see a particular reason why these need to be in a specific template when a table is just fine. If this was only used for finals, it might be different, to give extraordinary amounts of data about one match, but these are often used for every knockout match in a cup tournament. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table Fits in more with Wikipedia's general style, looks better, and is sortable. Some1 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table for lists of results. The collapsible template can be used to show results in a competition article, where having scorers + details hidden isn't an issue. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 17:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template Firstly, looks better imo, though I realise this is a subjective issue. Secondly, the details of goals is better done in the template. Thirdly and most importantly, the template is easier to use for editors. If there is a move to the table format, it should be done in the way where the template displays in the table format - this will keep the ease of editing and also make the change on all current uses of the template instead of neccesiating manual fixes (or a complex bot) of all uses of the template. --SuperJew (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template Frankly, I prefer the template, because it's much more easier to edit and more appealing. It also provides key information that is not seen in the other format.--Sakiv (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table It's more in line with Wikipedia policy for lists (e.g. WP:WHENTABLE) and is sortable. Eight lists of international results have achieved WP:featured list status while using the table format. The tournament matches (including qualification) have links to the competition if the average reader wanted to see more specific information. --6ii9 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template looks better and is much more informative. Detailed statistical information provided in template is something that is more in line in articles like this and similar to them. --Dimontschick (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template In my opinion, I believe "football box collapsible" is the best way to give the most important events at football matches as tables are quitely old-fashioned and are much more complicated to understand what we want to show to the audience. Marheen (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template The template format is more readable, more informative, easier to edit, and last but not least, looks a lot better imo. shika99bul (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table It is aligned with the Wikipedia policy.Sea Ane (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table per already established consensus, and the type of article in question, template is fine for other types of articles, per 6ii9. – Elisson • T • C • 17:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template The template is better because it has more information, it is more visually pleasing and easier to read and edit. Xguilex (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table - From personal experience, I think I with on this one as the football template should only really be used in tournament based articles with the tables being used for the national results as a list as it's talking about that particular team and not about the opposing team which they could either just view in the tournament article or on that particular national page instead. HawkAussie (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template I fully agree with template's supporters. Tibor13 (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template I'd rather find the template than the Table in these articles at any time I decide to update these sections.--Island92 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template Using templates in football articles will be more accurate in terms of understandability and editability. Fatihoztrk950 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template It's easier to locate information and it's more pleasing to the eye of readers--Iennandrea (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table For this particular type of article, the table looks better. Idealigic (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template I think the reports at Soccerway are better instead of the reports from the Eredivisie site for the Eredivisie games, because after a while you will no longer be able to view the reports from the Eredivisie site. SapCal9719 (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't what this survey is about. The question is whether the collapsible template or the table is better, not about the sources. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, I got a message telling me to put it right here. But that doesn't matter! SapCal9719 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude here, but what do you mean by "got a message"? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean I has received a message from a editor outside Wikipedia, but about Nehme's question to my regarding Soccerway reports. Sorry for the confusion! SapCal9719 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, right. No worries! :) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that my first comment was wrong for this survey, but I do prefer the template, because it is easier to edit, understand and can be further developed if necessary. SapCal9719 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just wanted to let you know what this survey was about. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> 22:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Template It's easier to locate information and it's more pleasing to the eye of readers. There isn't a need to change something that is functional and working.  Tubby23   talk  23:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Table As Stevie fae Scotland states, there's already a clear consensus for tables rather than collapsible lists. The templates do not comply with MOS and fail WP:ACCESS. Plus, the reader can sort info on tables which makes them more user friendly than the templates. NapHit (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Template The template looks better, in my opinion, and is much more informative. The table's only advantage is its sortability, and that isn't much. Deancarmeli (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Template I wish this decision would be left out untouched for discretion of the articles' authors. But in choosing one over another, I think template is better as it can provides either brief information about a match or more detailed if needed to be. I also like how in the US soccer articles those templates provide also details on disciplinary sanctions, while tables in such situation would look cumbersome. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Template Only thing I see in favour of the table is its readability, it's easy to understand and display in all kind of devices, but it lacks in presentation, info is unorganised and incomplete, so I'm in favour of keeping it as a template. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Template (I was made aware of this discussion via email from wikipedia) - I prefer the template, but I strongly believe it should be left to editors discretion, following established use on the article (or series of articles in the case of concurrent club seasons etc). Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
I read through some of the reasons above after the weekend and just a couple of points to consider that I think may have been overlooked. The main concern for any article is WP:READERS and we cannot assume that every reader knows about football. It's not about what we think looks better or is easier to edit (and both of these formats are just as easy to edit as the other, all you have to do is copy, paste and update). The table contains a header row which makes clear to readers what each column contains. We should also remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, all readers need to know on a page like this is the date, opposition, score and competition. The venue/goal scorers/attendance can add context but anything more is for the countless football statistics websites. It's also worth noting that we aren't discussing the suitability of the football box template on other types of articles, just these list articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this moved to a formal discussion. I'd like to note that the choice of format does not necessarily lock us in to the information seen in the examples above. If we wanted to reflect cards or times of scoring in the table format, we could do so. Caveat: That may require more discussion to achieve consensus. But it may be a way to get the best of both worlds. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, I think it is possible to use the template and have it displayed as a table if that is the consensus for display. That solves the editing issue. And please, as a long time editor in the field, it is much easier (also for myself and experienced editors and also for new editors) to edit with a template than to copy a table formatting and try to understand what | refers to which column. Why not take the best parts of both options? (personally I prefer the display of the template currently, but I don't have policy-based arguments for or against). --SuperJew (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC) --SuperJew (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * personally, I find tables easier to edit as there is no need to copy and paste the template, or to type out the parameters, though it probably depends on how you edit and what you are used to (equally, the table is presumably easier for editors using visual editor). I would be happy for your suggestion regarding the template displaying as a table to be implemented if it would make it easier for editors though and am not opposed to the table including extra details such as goal times and referees if deemed necessary. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As many people seem to have issues with the information omitted from the table, would a table format like this be a good compromise? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I think having the reference might be a possible addition to the page. The other additions isn't really going over the top in detail. HawkAussie (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

!No. !Date !Time !Venue !Opponents !Score !Competition !class=unsortable|Argentina scorers !Att. !Referee !class=unsortable|Ref.
 * 1004
 * 13 October 2020
 * Estadio Hernando Siles, La Paz (A)
 * 🇧🇴 bolivia
 * align=center bgcolor=#ddffdd|2–1
 * 2022 World Cup qualification
 * Martínez 45', Correa 79'
 * align=center|
 * Haro
 * align=center|
 * Haro


 * 1005
 * 12 November 2020
 * La Bombonera, Buenos Aires (H)
 * align=center bgcolor=#ffffcc|1–1
 * 2022 World Cup qualification
 * González 21' (pen.)
 * align=center|
 * Claus
 * }
 * Claus
 * }
 * }


 * I'd have no issue with extra info being added to the table. Perhaps date and time should be in the same column, like here? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you'd want to merge the columns - if it is in a table might as well make use of the sorting function - this way you can sort and see morning/afternoon/evening matches. Anyways I think the columns should be the same as the current parameters of the template - that way we can change the way the template is displayed to display a table and it won't require massive changing of thousands of pages. --SuperJew (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Would it be at all possible for some of the template !voters to elaborate on their arguments a little? A lot of these seem to hinge on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which isn't really helpful here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I stumbled upon this thread a bit late but the reason that I think that the Template is a better format is that the information provided in the Results & Fixtures section is not just a list of what that team has done, rather each match that they've participated in which requires information about how the other team performed, namely who scored and when, information that is missing in the Table. Also, very little is gained by allowing the information to be sortable as in the new format. If the aim is to give a non-football fan an easier way of understanding the presented statistics, the Template already achieves that. In my opinion, of course! Felixsv7 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Argentina national football team results (2020–present)
Hello, the whole RfC process was about which format was best suited to use in the article and there was no consensus to that it is preferable to use the table as long as it includes the information in the template. There is an editor who still insists on edit warring despite the conclusion you put which confirmed that there is no consensus for changing the format from template to table.--Sakiv (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, I went ahead and posted it here for broader transparency.
 * To try to clarify, there were those in the discussion who, while preferring the template overall, did say there were aspects of the table format they liked, but that the issue was that the table didn't provode as much info as the template. So while there was no consensus to implement the table as proposed, if the table wqere to include all the info that the template provided (while of course keeping things like WP:ACCESS in mind) then the discussion has consensus for that to be implemented.
 * As I look at the table as currently implemented on the page, I can't tell if everything from the template has been added. If not, then either such things should be added, else the template restored, per the discussion. I hope this helps. - jc37 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My mate, I think you did not read all the viewpoints. Among those who preferred the template, there was one editor who explicitly stated that he liked the template, but if the table is agreed upon, it must contain the basic information contained in the template. No single editor can determine the outcome of the debate or this process. Others said that the template contains all the required information and is well constructed, and there are those who consider the table outdated. Then we come to the appearance in other devices, the table does not make it easy for the reader to see the details, but rather makes it more difficult as it looks as if the details are crowded and you have to drag the screen, so it does not appear close to each other but far away. And last but not least, the current article when it was using the template was in harmony with other articles, including the featured ones like 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season and Faroe Islands national football team results. Best regards--Sakiv (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read the discussion. For example, there was more of a discussion than you appear to present (many who preferred the template merely did so due to the amount if info presented - concerns about the presentation of "goals", for example). I can understand that you had/have a different preference, but I merely closed based upon the discussion presented. - jc37 22:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. If the threaded discussion is going to be so important for the outcome, why is there a survey then? Based on the outcome of the survey, we find that those who preferred the template are the majority. There were a similar number of views from both sides who preferred the formats based on their aesthetic, that's all.--Sakiv (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)