Template talk:Football box/Archive 1

Template documentation
I have moved the usage information to Template:Footballbox/doc. Obviously, the documentation could be improved greatly. Cheers. --StuartBrady (Talk) 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Referee property
How should the referee property be used? I've noticed that for some sports, flagicon is used, but others seem to have a link to an association. --StuartBrady (Talk) 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering about this! IMO; flags could make it easier to see the nationality, but that's only if one knows the world flags. lil2mas (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Should only the last name of the referees be used or the whole name? IMO; the whole name can be used in World Cups etc. with "famous" referees; like Pierluigi Collina & Markus Merk, and only the last name in competitions like the UEFA Cup & the UEFA Champions League. Any opinions? lil2mas (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever is used for the players should also apply consistently to the referee. If just surnames are used for players, then same for referee.  - Tomperc (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Yellows and reds can be a big part of the game. Can they be used? How? if not used why not? Coppercanuck (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be used, pretty much like the goal template. Check Template:Yel and others for more information. Kaizeler (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think sent off: red cards should be shown in the fotballbox as it plays out as a major factor in a game. But when they are being inserted I only discover it being reverted as "...cards are not goals", what's the downside with inserting this fact? I understand that showing yellow cards will make the match report too long sometimes, but I've only experienced a maximum of 5 red cards in a game, and that's rare... I think we need a discussion on this issue to reach a consensus. That's my opinion! Any other thoughts? lil2mas (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I created Template:footballbox_collapsible to hopefully alleviate some of these concerns/reverts. In a collapsed mode (the default) it shows the first line of the box score (date, teams, final score, and location).  When expanded it shows all of the details of the match.  This should make everyone a little less jumpy about the "clutter" that card information seems to cause in articles with lots of box scores.  For an example of their usage, look at any MLS team's 2009 season article. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot see why that template is needed, considering we already have Template:Fb match. Darryl.matheson (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for pointing that out. I searched for such a template in a number of places, but never found one which is why I went ahead and created one.  It doesn't look like Template:Fb match supports all of the same information that Template:footballbox does.  It appears to be more of a summary.  My intention in creating Template:footballbox_collapsible was to support everything that Template:footballbox and Template:penshootoutbox support and just make it hideable.  Ah well.  More choices isn't necessarily a bad thing is it? --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I like footballbox collapsible better than fb match, because the layout is more similar to the well-known footballbox. Since there are so few articles using fb match, I propose we should change these articles to be using footballbox collapsible instead. Any objections? lil2mas (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't object in principle but there are several issues. The fb match template uses the team templates which make things a lot easier, the winning team can be emboldened rather than having both teams in bold, I also think it would look neater if the default width was set to 60 or 70%. Darryl.matheson (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The default size of footballbox collapsible is the same as footballbox which is 100%. However, like footballbox you can use the size parameter to customize it to any size such as 60 or 70% as you suggest.  I've provided an example below.  --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 01:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Colour card codes
I need a bit of info about usage. What is the code used for yellow, red and 2nd yellow cards? Is it common to put substitutions in this box? Coppercanuck (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: lil2mas (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Round
Couldn't round be inserted again as a optional field? It makes great sense in cup games etc.?

It was there shortly but was removed again. I really don't see why...

Keallu (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENDASH
Did you know a score like 4 – 2 should be 4–2 according to the Manual of Style at WP:ENDASH? Art LaPella (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe in prose, but in a stylistic summation of a match, I don't think the rules of WP:ENDASH matter one jot. – PeeJay 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that if you look at the details of WP:ENDASH, you'll see that there is an allowance for the spaced en dashes in the policy. Point 2 of the appropriate usage criteria says that for the use of en dashes in lists, "to separate distinct information within points ... en dashes are always spaced."  In my opinion, a series of footballbox's in an article is nothing more than a structured list, and as such, the policy is appropriate and obeyed. cassius1213 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the kind of list they were thinking of. "4–3 win" is one of their explicit, unspaced examples. The fact that it isn't prose strikes me as a better argument; perhaps they weren't thinking of that case. I'll ask them. Art LaPella (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There should definitely be no space. Unspaced is prescribed because it's easier to read; in an infobox it is also much neater. Tony   (talk)  22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, endashes should always be unspaced in prose, but in this template I can't see the problem with including a space. There is plenty of space in the template, so readability shouldn't be an issue here. Tony, if you have a look at the implementation of this template in an article such as 2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage, I think you'll agree that it looks better with a space either side of the dash in the scoreline. – PeeJay 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To test the strength of the visual argument, I removed the spaces in one of the sections. I see no readability problems without the spaces, so I'm inclined to disagree that the spaces should be there. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument wasn't that removing the spaces decreases readability; it was that Tony seems to be suggesting that removing spaces increases readability, but since there is plenty of whitespace in the table, it shouldn't make any difference whether the endashes are spaced or not. I just happen to think it looks better with the spaces and that the guidelines at WP:ENDASH do not necessarily have to be followed in every instance. – PeeJay 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We had quite a fight over spaced en dashes on a couple months ago; see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 112 if you like. You would be surprised how seriously we take spacing in our en dashes.
 * On a more serious note, if any article using this template is ever going to reach FA, then it has to comply with the MoS. So if the consensus here is that the MoS is wrong, you should try to get it changed. Ozob (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the MOS is all well and good when applied to prose, but this template is not prose; it is a collection of disjointed facts. Can't we just apply the MOS to the prose in this encyclopaedia? – PeeJay 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The style guides and policies apply to all article text, including infoboxes. They are not an island unto themselves. The argument Ozob mentions about spacing is irrelevant: it concerned whether en dashes should be spaced when either element has internal spaces. I didn't notice an internal space in the score numbers here. The guideline is quite explicit: en dashes are unspaced. To space them here makes it harder to read them; it is completely unnecessary in terms of some desire to "fill up white space" surrounding the item (this has never been a concern in formatting and punctuation ... or perhaps we should introduce double spaces after commas to stretch out lists that don't go to the right margin of the infobox?). Tony   (talk)  00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the argument had a wider scope than that, but of course that's a personal opinion. Ozob (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well since it seems that the guidelines are quite immutable in this case, I'm going to assert WP:IAR for the usage of this template. There is a general consensus within WP:FOOTY that there is nothing wrong with having a space on either side of the endashes in this template, and if WP:ENDASH contraindicates something that people have no problem with, then I think it's prudent for us just to ignore it. Thanks. – PeeJay 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (e.c. with post below) No, it is not acceptable to simply think you can override a well-established rule that is used in the rest of WP. Worse, people will see spaces in the infoboxes and tables and think that they should be used everywhere. Both examples in the infobox will have to be changed, or we will need to start the process of tagging every article that uses this template as needing to comply with the MoS. Tony   (talk)  01:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know this isn't an infobox, right? Anyway, as I see it, WP:IAR says that any rule can be ignored if it prevents the encyclopaedia from being improved, and since spacing the endashes in this template improves the appearance of the template, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't ignore WP:ENDASH for this template. – PeeJay 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are pushing your own personal visual preference over the established one for the whole project. This is not "improving" the project; it is degrading it. Tony   (talk)  01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not just my "personal visual preference", since no one who actually contributes to WP:FOOTY articles has made a complaint about it. Furthermore, this is the established preference for the whole project (assuming "the project" to be WP:FOOTY), so I don't see how my views on the matter improve or degrade the project in any way. Regardless, this discussion needs to be brought to the attention of more members at WP:FOOTY, since that's who this discussion affects most. – PeeJay 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "...since that's who this discussion affects most..."—ah; no. This discussion affects the readers of FOOTY articles (a significantly higher number than the editors in the project). We are here to help our readers—first, and foremost. Please discuss in that light. HWV258 . 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm no soccer expert (not even particularly a fan) but I tend to agree with PeeJay that the spaced dash looks better and more intuitive here. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the consensus of WP:FOOTY is that unspaced en dashes look bad here, then perhaps the MoS is wrong. Perhaps some of the editors of WP:FOOTY should come to WT:MOS and express their desire to change the MoS. Ozob (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trovatore, I don't see how unspacing the en dashes makes the box more intuitive. I'll admit that both the spaced and unspaced versions are pretty unambiguous, but it's pretty easy to understand that that the two items surrounding the dash are "connected" (for lack of a better word) to each other. As I said at WT:MOS, there should be a more substantiative reason to ignore the rules than just a subjective issue (visual appeal). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really care who wins, but remember this started because I used WP:AWB to apply the rule I found at WP:ENDASH throughout Wikipedia. If WP:ENDASH doesn't apply to soccer/football and it isn't mentioned at WP:ENDASH, you can expect more people like me "fixing" it. Art LaPella (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They should make a rule that states that if you choose to enforce a minor guideline that will affect an immensely large number of articles, you must be willing to do the leg work and correct/change them all. I will have to agree with PeeJay on this one. Consensus is established in WP:FOOTY on this one since no one has gone against established practice or called for this to be "corrected" for a long, long time. There may be guidelines has to how to use the n-dash, but consensus beats the guidelines in this case. Digirami (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I used AWB to fix a specific sports article. There was no clue to tell me that a template was involved at all, so it looked like a simple, isolated WP:ENDASH violation, until I got reverted. I'll be more careful next time depending on how this discussion turns out, but others will continue to "correct" sports articles as long as the consensus – the Wikipedia consensus as documented at the Manual of Style, not just the FOOTY consensus – is for an unspaced en dash without a non-prose exception. Art LaPella (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any record at WP:FOOTY of a consensus to use spaced dashes for scores. Furthermore, the top reliable English-language sources outside Wikipedia prefer unspaced dashes in similar contexts; see, for example, the BBC News list of Premier League results, or the Premier League's own list of results. Spaced endashes for scores seems to be a local and unusual preference of some editors on this particular topic, rather than a consensus that reflects real-world or Wikipedia consensus. Let's stick with a mainstream style for scores rather than employing a less-common format. Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that consensus is not only established through discussion, but through acceptance and further usage. Given the scale of use of spaced n-dashes, consensus is established since no one has objected to spaced n-dashes in the considerably long time I've been involved in the project, and users has continued using the n-dash with spaces. Digirami (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As Silence and consensus takes pains to point out, silence is the weakest form of consensus, and there seems to be little consensus overall for this departure from the MoS. Eubulides (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You presumably mean no one in football articles. I and others have been enforcing WP:ENDASH for years, with little or no organized opposition, although many remain unaware of the guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eubulides presents a compelling adjunct case. I cannot quite see why this issue has so much emotional investment here, when it is a foregone conclusion in real-life sports coverage. Is it an anti-MoS show of strength (WP:POINTY)? Here we are trying to present a uniform approach to an important aspect of punctuation formatting. Why the drum-beating? Tony   (talk)  06:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to confirm that I have no opposition to WP:ENDASH being enforced in regular prose. My only opposition to that MOS guideline relates to this template. Before expressing an opinion on this subject, please consider how the template looks when the endashes aren't spaced. As a method of comparison, please see the below examples:


 * Spaced endashes in scorelines


 * Unspaced endashes in scorelines

In my opinion, the above option looks better and is the status quo for WP:FOOTY articles anyway. – PeeJay 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks disjointed. I will notify the MoS that you are conducting a campaign to limit its coverage of Wikipedia. Tony   (talk)  08:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish, but surely it's better to determine the outcome of this discussion before resorting to any further measures? – PeeJay 08:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Digirami (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony1 that the unspaced endash version looks better. My preference for appearance is just a mild one, but the unspaced version looks more like what the BBC and the Premier League do. I am still puzzled for why there's sentiment from departing from that mainstream style. Perhaps it's because of the font used for scores? Perhaps that font could be changed? (Not in the tricky way proposed below, just in the sense of using a better font.) Eubulides (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Technical solution
Really, folks. Some of the time spent getting into ridiculous arguments (especially for our good friends in the MoS drama brigade) would be far better off spent learning a little CSS.

The sandbox contains some code which would apply this everywhere, but it can't handle things like "(a.e.t.)" tacked onto the end of the scoreline. I'd rather that in the long run this be handled by moving things like that into a new parameter, but that's an argument for another day. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I implemented an extra parameter for extra time, to make your technical solution complete ;o) lil2mas (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) For the record: I think it's better to use spacing in tables.
 * I don't see how a different method to include the spaces solves the problem of whether the spaces should be included. But if the solution would be include the spaces, your solution does not work in all cases, see the following imaginay match report:


 * Changing the letter-spacing is a really bad solution here, because the letter-spacing is not the problem. But you were right in trying.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The letter-spacing is precisely the problem. Anyway, the example above could use 1 0– 1: that's an even bigger hack, but it works. In the long run the correct solution is to split the score up into two attributes, but that will require more work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then probably I am missing the point. I thought that the discussion was about whether the endash in the score should be spaced. That was at least the problem that Art LaPella raised, if I interpret it correctly. But from your answer, it looks like the discussion was about how to implement the spaces around the endash. No sarcasm intented, but can you clarify which problem you are solving? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is primarily one of semantics. Literally having a space character on either side of an endash is "wrong" insofar as it matters to typographical purists. However, there's nothing wrong with "faking it" by increasing the character spacing; this gives a result which is visually pleasing to those who prefer a gap without it being a "space" as such which would change the semantics of the dash. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. You are trying to satisfy both sides, by technically not having a space but at the same time having the appearance of a space. I can see that this probably satisfies the Footy-side, but I am curious to see what the MoS-side thinks of it.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. For what it's worth, my AWB software considers the revised display above to conform to WP:ENDASH, although a human Manual of Style editor would obviously disagree, especially if he hasn't read this discussion. Art LaPella (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's a lot wrong with sneaking in half spaces. Now, is this issue going to be sorted, or do we organise to tag every article in which this is used as needing a MoS audit? Tony   (talk)  22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's nice to see the art of the ultimatum isn't lost on you, Tony. Why don't you just let the discussion play itself out before condemning us all to the seventh circle of hell? – PeeJay 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are not "two sides" here. Be wary of mistaking edit count on WT:MOS for weight of argument. Semantically there is nothing wrong with the compromise edit, and typographically there is nothing to complain about either; there is no mandate for endashes to have no more than a given number of pixels between them and the surrounding text, only that there are no spaces. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean we only need to satisfy the wording of WP:ENDASH but not its purpose? Its purpose has to be an opinion on the appearance of the finished product, not how it looks on the edit screen. It doesn't matter to the reader whether a space is created by a template, a "letter-spacing" parameter, a space bar or an nbsp. But I do thank you for solving a part of the problem: my AWB software, and anyone else using AWB similarly, won't need to learn or recognize an exception when they happen to encounter this particular template. For that, we should credit Chris Cunningham with an attempt at a compromise. Art LaPella (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I was wrong to say there was no way to recognize the footballbox template; I just didn't look. Also, any mass templating or space removing should probably be done with a bot; I counted about 7000 "what links here". Art LaPella (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no MoS problem with using a different font or appearance to highlight the score. However, I must say that the proposed technical solution is spectacularly ugly, not only because it mishandles large scores, but also because the unwanted pixels around the scores are likely to mess up layout in some other cases. I don't think that this sort of technique will work. Let's keep things simple. Remind me again: why depart from the style used by the Premier League and the BBC? Eubulides (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll remind you. (Before reading on, Manual of Style veterans should cross themselves for protection against the Evil One.) The style in those two links isn't unspaced en dashes; it's (shudder!) HYPHENS! Art LaPella (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but it's unspaced hyphen, and in the BBC site it's in an unusual font that makes the hyphen look considerably longer than usual. The BBC site's visual appearance is very close to that of the ordinary unspaced endash example shown above (not the one with the technical spacing tricks; the straightforward one). Surely there's no real objection this aspect of the BBC site's visual appearance? Eubulides (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean me, no I don't object to unspaced scores on BBC, or spaced scores either. On Wikipedia, we should probably simplify the rules, but anybody who isn't working to simplify or change the rules should be following them; more details here. Art LaPella (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to any "solution" like this. The typographical concern here is the appearance of space around en dashes, not the presence of spaces in the Wikipedia source. If we were truly concerned about the appearance of the source, we'd probably object to the clutter produced by all those 's. But we're not; we're concerned about what the reader at last sees. And in this "solution", the reader sees spaces between the number and the dash. It doesn't matter how they're produced.

Now, as I said before, maybe there's some reason to overturn the long-standing consensus on this issue, and the right place to discuss that would be WT:MOS. But unless that happens, the only MoS-compliant solution is to remove all the spaces between the scores and the dashes. Ozob (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reasons I read to keep the space are:

I think the first reason is no argument, because at best it shows the two options are equal, and in that case it would not hurt to follow the MoS. The second reason might emotionally be important to many, but be honest, it is no reason. And the third reason is a matter of taste. I think the version without spaces looks better. In fact, I think most people do, that's why it is in the MoS... The reasons to remove the space: I can see nothing wrong with this reason. If I did not forget any reason, the reasons to remove the spaces outweigh the reasons to keep the spaces.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The extra space does not matter, there is enough room.
 * We've done it for a long time already.
 * The version with spaces looks better.
 * Endashes are unspaced all over wikipedia, it is in the MoS.
 * 7000 footballbox templates are both a reason to let it be (too big to fix) and a reason to fix it (before it spreads further). Now I think it could be fixed in one long day with AWB, if you didn't do anything else. Art LaPella (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A better solution would be to have separate fields to specify the scores of the teams. The template could then automatically position the scores and insert the en dash. Transitioning could be done by having a template that supports both the present scheme and the new one; while it might take a while to change, there would be no big rush. Ozob (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, I've no idea why a separate AWB has to go through thousands of articles (isn't the whole point of a template that they can all be changed at once?). But if that is what is necessary, please set it in motion. Tony   (talk)  07:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The template includes both scores in the same score= field, and similarly for penaltyscore=. So the spaces are in each article and the template documentation, but not in the template itself. I shouldn't be starting a major project like 7000 articles during U.S. income tax season (which should be radically simplified), and anyway my AWB software can find plenty of Manual of Style compliance issues in any major article, including more frequently read articles and even featured articles. I could explain how to use AWB at whatever level of detail is required, although the exact coding depends on whether AWB is using new fields to be added to the footballbox template, and that change to the template would be beyond my experience. Art LaPella (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB still doesn't work for Mac. I sympathise with the tax; except here, the Federal Taxation Act is 6,000 pages long: can you match that? Tony   (talk)  01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7500 according to this. And it's a lot worse in my business. Art LaPella (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So when will this template's MoS breach be fixed?
We've discussed it enough above. There is no justification for breaching the accepted formatting of en dashes on WP. I see people hard at editing this template, yet the spaces have not been removed. Why not? Tony  (talk)  13:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a long-term solution which involves having the two teams' scores be separate arguments. This may obviate the need to have a dash between them altogether. Giving that any change here will require significant work on thousands of articles to carry out, and also given that this is of absolutely zero importance to all but a handful of editors, I'd rather work on the long-term approach. Removing editprotected because (a) the template isn't protected and (b) this is nothing to do with the template logic anyway (editprotected is for changes to protected code, not to try to force someone to manually update thousands of articles). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, you do realise the "problem" with this template is with its implementation, not with any coding issue, right? – PeeJay 18:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If WP:ENDASH is "of absolutely zero importance to all but a handful of editors", it should be changed. If it can't be changed, it's a consensus.
 * I don't understand "editprotected"; I found neither Template:Editprotected nor protection at Template:Footballbox or its recent history. This edit wasn't protection, and anyway it was removed last week.
 * I don't want to be misinterpreted as ordering anyone to make thousands of edits; they might find out I'm known for the reply "Glad you volunteered!" Art LaPella (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is "consensus" that Wikipedia should follow prescribed rules for typographical dashes, but there is also consensus that it isn't actually that important most of the time. So there's no rush. The comment about "editprotected" was because Tony added an editprotected template in the comment above, which I removed when replying because it's inapplicable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So, in order to get the ball rolling, we need a template with "score1" and "score2" parameters and which uses those parameters if they're given or "score" if they're not. I've never tried template coding before, ever, so I'm probably not the right one to attempt this. Is anyone willing to step up? Ozob (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy to do the coding work, though I'm currently blocked waiting for a response on another issue. Assuming that gets resolved, I'll get a prototype out within the next week. It's easy to make it backwards-compatible to ease transition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also "penaltyscore1" and "penaltyscore2" or some similar solution. Art LaPella (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ball=goal?
There seems to me absolutely nothing intuitive about using a picture of a ball as a symbol for a goal. What was the rationale behind this? Kevin McE (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be better off bringing this up at Template:Goal. – PeeJay 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Coloured backgrounds
Some editors are giving these match summaries coloured backgrounds, presumably to indicate the result (e.g. New Zealand). There is no key for this, and nothing intuitive about the coding. To my mind, it is garish and uninformative, and should not remain: does anyone wish to defend the practice? Kevin McE (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Get rid. Wikitables are not baubles to be decorated in national colours (or indeed any other colours) at the whim of their editors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)