Template talk:Infobox football club/Archive 5

Choosing the Infobox clubname parameter rule
Per the closed discussion above, we appear to have consensus for having a loose rule for what form the club name parameter for the football club infobox takes, with exceptions to the rule to be settled later on an individual basis. The club common name is and will be debatable in some cases, this is not a bad thing, but neither is having a general rule. This view imo is supported by the adoption of option C in the previous debate. The rule will be an unambiguous starting point, from which desired differences should be taken up on individual article talk pages, and settled in the normal way with consensus. So, this discussion is to lay out and agree the content of the rule. If one is agreed, editors, without prejudice to any other wikipedia rules and policies, should then imo feel free and justified to maintain any infobox in line with the rule decided (and it would be helpful if they refer any new users to it), or to maintain an overiding consensus subsequently demonstrated on the talk page (again it would be helpfull to refer people to the principle already agreed above).

So, the way I see it, to decide this rule, the issues are:


 * UK/world use - we need some input from other countries, as discussion has centred on UK club names so far
 * What is the common name of a club?
 * Inclusion of F.C / 'Football Club' / or whether this is needed at all. As far as I can see, the previous arguments for inclusion centre on cases like Barnsley, where the removal creates an ambiguous term. There are also cases like Bradford, with two clubs possibly being called Bradford commonly.
 * Use of common abbreviations, from common ones like Hearts and Wolves, to the more extreme such as 'Man Utd'.
 * Per above, use of abbreviations for United etc.
 * Any others that arise in discussion

MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rule
I propose to keep this section as a placeholder for the proposed rule, to be presented in short bullet point style. If anyone sees non-minority support (i.e. more than 2 editors propose it) for a particular point to be included emerging in the discussion, fell free to add it, but let's not get carried away with an edit war. For disputed positions, we can add each point without obscuring others, and settle it on a resolution type vote, where support for each point can be demonstrated. I propose then moving to an unnoposed adoption of one or more points, and/or commencement of any disputed votes, to commence in one week. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
I missed the initial exchanges, I should have said, despite my title header below, this discussion isn't meant to be along exclusive non replied sections like an arbcom, the discussion should be like anywhere else, but of course, fixed to the topic at hand, bolded above, to aid reading. MickMacNee (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of MickMacNee
Now, my opinion on these is as follows: MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no clue about foreign club names, suffice to say some are very long, and what works for the UK may not be appropriate for other countries.
 * The rule should state for UK clubs that FC/Football Club is not needed in the infobox for the commmon club name parameter, either as part of the common usage of the name of a club, nor as a disambiguation from other articles, or lesser clubs. This is already stated in the lead, and the article title. It should be clear to any reader that the name at the top of the infobox is for a football club. This can also be seen in the Italian example of Lazio and S.S. Lazio, where the parameter is still 'Lazio'.
 * Certainly for UK clubs, we should make the rule that the common name is the full, un-shortened name minus FC/Football Club, i.e. Manchester United, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Heart of Midlothian. I think that, while it will be debated in some cases, this is an easier starting point than if we were to try to draw up a rule to fit all possible cases right now. I.e. the debates that will no doubt ensue, are better focused on the actual club articles in question, without the distraction of using other clubs infoboxes or the actions of other editors on other articles as a defence for edits on that article. A glaring case as I see it will be Wimbledon/AFC Wimbledon.
 * If anyone overlooks anything, and common patterns of opposition emerge on talk pages, there is nothing to stop anyone then re-opening this discussion to ammend the rule, if there is an obvious pattern emmerging. Infact, urging people to ammend this rule in that case is always going to be preferable to edit warring over many articles.

Views of The Rambling Man

 * Just a quick one before I express my views more comprehensively. Mick, you've chosen three good examples of where the common name would not be the name of the town/city in which the club is situated.  I wonder if a variation on the ruling ought to deal with clubs which, having removed the FC, all you're left with is the name of the town/city, for instance, Bury F.C.
 * It's my view above that in these cases, with the lead text sentences, and by having F.C. in the article name, I can't see a need to even create a special disabiguation clause for FC in the case of Barnsley etc. But, I guess it wouldn't do any harm if others realy want it included, as it's pretty clear what the special criteria would be - is there an article name that could conflict? But even for this, I can only point to the Lazio case, the parameter being just Lazio doesnt seem to cause issues there (I had a veyr quick look at the talk page). MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also interested that to see your choice of common names for WWFC isn't Wolves and for HoM isn't Hearts! I think that'll come under "what is a common name?" The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Accepted, I agree Hearts and Wolves would have a good case for shortening the common name from the official name, but I couldn't see any initial rule that could allow this straight off without causing issues elsewhere. I looked at the Wolves official site, and even they interchange it, so a wider discussion, centred on Wolves, and not dragging other clubs into it, would be best, imo. I am thinking that the majority of clubs won't be like this. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the definition (in the infobox) of this parameter is the "commonly-used name of the club" then we already enter a world of subjectivity. What's common for me is not common for someone else, particularly not for someone who isn't English, British, European etc.  Perhaps the core of the problem is the definition of this parameter.  I'd like to explore what this parameter actually adds to the infobox when you have   and  .  In my world, the commonly-used name of some clubs are as follows: Ipswich Town F.C. -> Ipswich, Manchester United F.C. -> Man U, F.C. Internazionale Milano -> Inter Milan, West Bromwich Albion F.C. -> West Brom, etc.  I think the biggest problem is the grey area between what we all think "common name" means and what "nickname" means.  I wouldn't, for example, consider West Brom a nickname, it is (to me) a common name for the club.  Can anyone provide a good reason for the existence of the parameter? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its because of the conflicting view that we are trying to install a best fit rule. Minus FC seems to fit that criteria the best, without playing around with the Non-FC suffixes of clubs (i.e. Rovers, City, United etc). When a classified check of results are read out on a saturday afternoon in Britain they read out the full name of the club minus the FC. This would appear to be the safest way of shortening a club's name down to its common variety without any conflict. i.e. Wolverhampton Wanderers 3 Manchester United 2, Portsmouth 2 Tottenham Hotspur 2. Sarumio (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. What benefit does this parameter bring to the infobox?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And just because Tim Gudgeon drops the FC I'm not sure that gives you carte blanche to assume it's the "safest way" (whatever that means) to shorten a club name. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your missing the point, that was just one example of how an official media source (like most) refers to clubs in a standard format with a defined rule for how clubs should be read out or displayed in a table - i.e. they simply omit only the unnecessary FC/AFC part of a club's official name! We're after a rule here (not debating the need for the parameter again btw) and that seems like as good a rule as you're going to get - for English clubs anwyay. Sarumio (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to get a little sick of you telling me what I can and cannot discuss. You're not in charge of this discussion and it's open for all.  You feel obliged to respond to everyone that's contributed here so far to the point of obsession.  I'm interested in what this parameter brings to each article.  In my opinion nothing but subjective argument.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, calm down, theres no need for that! Why do you have to get so personal. I wasn't telling you what you can and cant discuss, what is your problem! Sarumio (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly calm, I'm not the one punctuating my text with capitals and exclamation marks.  You're telling me we're "not debating the need for the parameter again" and telling Chris below that he's discussing something which you considered had been excluded in the "poll".  Just try putting positive contributions here e.g. what is the point of the parameter? instead of continually questioning other people's opinions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just stop trying to cause arguments Rambling Man! Sarumio (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I simply pointed out where you told me what I could and couldn't discuss. And where you told Chris what he shouldn't be discussing.  All you seem to be doing is criticising other people's opinions.  Can you please (for the third time of asking) explain what you think the benefit of this parameter is?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I commented before, I'm not here to debate whether we need the parameter or not, this discussion is to establish what part of a clubs name should be included in it. Also I didnt tell Chris what he can or cant discuss, from his comments I was unsure if he had seen the original poll so just enlightened him as what he had said ammounted to option A - which we've moved on from in fairness! He's free to discuss it of course, i didnt demand he shut up did I! Sarumio (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time can you explain the point of the parameter? This stage of discussion does not preclude ideas being mooted, nobody's "moved on", so presumably you're happy to discuss why you think we need the parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have I not made myself clear enough yet! You cant force opinions out of me, i do not wish to discuss with you the need for the parameter, I've already told you this twice, stop pestering! Sarumio (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of this thread is to discuss the various options, not just to give head counts. If you're not prepared to give a rationale for your arguments, there's little point expressing them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I think that both of us would rather you stopped trying to short-circuit the discussion. It took the better part of five years to finalise the football/soccer/association football debate, after all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Sarumio
Sarumio (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with MickMacNee

Views of EP

 * I'm going to concentrate on South American & Mexican clubs, being my areas of expertise. I'd say in most cases, the best option would be to go with the club name minus any Club Atlético, Club Social y Deportivo, Club de Futbol.... There are some cases like UNAM Pumas where its tough to determine the common name, in cases such as these I'd suggest a requirement for talkpage discussion before changes are made. In cases like Club Atlético Tucumán the club are commonly known as Atlético Tucumán, but in the majority of cases Atlético River Plate or Atlético Banfield would be completely wrong. I'd strongly suggest that people who have had little or no involvement in Wikipedia's coverage of football in South America, Italy, Spain, Asia or wherever do not take any decision made here as licence to go around making mass edits to impose their idea of what the clubs common names should be.
 * I would also say that for British teams, F.C. should only be removed from Barnsley, Blackpool, etc, and only added to Doncaster Rovers, Bristol City etc with talkpage consensus. I also want to reiterate that disputes should be debated on the talkpage. I believe that any repeat of the trivial edit warring and mass reversions we saw before, from parties who are aware of this debate, should be considered disruptive editing and result in blocks or even subject bans. English   peasant  16:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I might not have understood correctly here, but are you proposing the rule re. FC be: include FC only where there's no 'rovers', 'united' etc? MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also a little confused - if its like Mick says, then why does Barnsley need FC and not Bristol City. If however you're saying nothing can be edited without individual talk page consensus then that is Option D on the original poll which we didnt vote for! If you could just clear up what you meant...Sarumio (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify my point: The issue is too trivial, mass edits to add F.C. or remove it add no factual content to the encyclopaedia. People who are inclined to make lots of edits should probably spend their time updating player stats (and pc/nt update parameters), if not this that then fix some misinformation, put some appropriate categories on articles, find references or external links for unreferenced articles, fix broken wikilinks, fix links to dab pages like Defender or overview pages like Football. Mass edits to add F.C. or remove it add no factual content or utility. Any potentially controversy over what the common name is should be resolved on talkpages. Manchester United should be Manchester United, (not Man Utd or Man U), but if the majority of the contributors to the Man U article want it to read Manchester United F.C. and make a reasonable case on the talkpage, then so be it. Hearts and Wolves are tricky, I'd be inclined to go with the short version, but having made no substantial contribution to either page, or to any of their players, its best left with club fans and regular contributors to Scottish and Championship football, just like I'd expect Hearts and Wolves fans to leave the Argentinos Juniors article alone, unless they care to actually add some information, then they would be more than welcome. The lack of common sense and perspective here is frankly astonishing. In summary whatever the outcome, no more mass edits of a trivial nature please.  E  P  23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Chris Cunningham
I haven't been involved in the discussion thus far, though I have been guilty over the years of de-piping UK club links (adding the F.C. back in) whenever I've seen them over the years. I personally reckon we should use the "full abbreviated" version (e.g. Rangers F.C., FC Barcelona) in all but heavily repeated use, so they should definitely be used in the infobox. I don't see that dropping parts of the name really makes the boxes more readable or otherwise informative, and I think that keeping the letters is the appropriate level of formality for generally addressing clubs on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this effectively constitutes what Option A set out in the original poll and it was voted against! Sarumio (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the original poll was particularly clear, to be honest. What I see as option A is "don't have this poll at all". Option B just says "define a standard", which doesn't preclude option A from being a choice for the standard. Anyway, as I understand it this was an informal discussion, not a "poll", and even RfCs have to be open for a month, so I thought I'd point out what my position was even though there was sorta-kinda a sorta-kinda consensus to have another debate after the original discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Peanut4

 * I'd choose a team's official name less any F.C. / A.F.C. I'm not sure what to do with foreign equivalent, such as SS Lazio or Lazio. But for British clubs, I'd go along with Arsenal, Bury, Barnsley, Rangers, Manchester City, Manchester United, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Hearts of Midlothian. Peanut4 (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At current the infobox has a entry for the full name, and the full name is repeated in the first four/five words of the entry. Plus the name is X F.C. Somewhere at the entry ought to know it's the football team entry. How many times do we need to repeat football club? Peanut4 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a byproduct of having a sport-related name. It's not like sport in America, where we would be able to say Arsenal Braves are an English football club... For this reason, I don't see why we should forego repetition and make the infobox any different from the main article. Plus, with an image of a shiny club crest or badge catching our eyes when we are first taken to a club article, the eye is likely to see the infobox header first, so all the more reason to INCLUDE THE DAMN F.C./A.F.C.   Sorry... - Dudesleeper /  Talk  21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very fair point. But in such a case then, we should be having Arsenal Football Club, Manchester United Football Club, Leeds United Association Football Club, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As what, the article title? - Dudesleeper / Talk  21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between formality and forced verbosity. "Arsenal F.C." is still the club's formal name. "Arsenal" isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But no-one said it has to be the club's formal name. That's already in the infobox below anyway. I'm going to repeat myself here, even when that's the opposite of the point I'm try to get across, but how many times do we need to tell the reader this is a football club we're talking about? As few as possible. If we want to put that in the top of the infobox, I'd go the whole hog, and remove the fullname in the main body of the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're somewhat making your own point. Abbreviating football club to F.C. means one less football club repetition. The prose/main article has formal name (in article title) and full name (in lead section), so why can't we have the two appearing in the infobox? It is supposed to be a summary of the main article after all (I thought). - Dudesleeper / Talk  21:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is we have more than that. Arsenal's entry basically says in the article title, the first paragraph, and infobox, that the club (and article) is a football club a total of six times. Total overkill to me. Peanut4 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Going round in circles here. How would you avoid the repetition, given that their name includes football club and they are a football club? Koncorde initially brought up the repetition thing, but I haven't seen an alternative article intro like I requested a while ago. - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Don;t shoot me down here, but is this not deteriorating into a replica of the previous (now archived) discussion which we debated for over a week. It seems to me the people who voted A are now in this dicussion, still talking about the club name being the same as the article name. Nothing new is being said, its all been said before and was rejcted by way of a vote. What was the point in the previous poll if this is all you are going to do? There are certain people airing their thoughts in here which have nothing to with what MickMacNee set this seperate discussion up for - Option C was voted for yet its now getting twisted back into Option A by certain people! Sarumio (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't anyone tell you polls are bad? - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And Mick's third "issues" bulletpoint (before he stated your views for you) is "Inclusion of F.C / 'Football Club' / or whether this is needed at all." - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right. But Unfortunately there isn't much alternatives to the intro. I can think of removing one instance of the word "club" from the Arsenal intro. But just having the infobox title as Arsenal (and not Arsenal F.C.) removes one. As does having it as Arsenal Football Club, and removing that line from the infobox. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Koncorde
I agree with Peanut above. Should "Wolverhampton Wanderers" be Wolves? Well, that'll ultimately be up to the editors of that particular article if there's a feeling it's required. Ultimately I prefer the idea of avoiding repeating ourselves as much as possible. I also feel that the "F.C." is redundant in all but a few cases. Adding it (as Cunningham suggested) to "Rangers" is...well, odd. But it seems the collective over there wish for it to be present (or it has never been challenged).

I also agree with English Peasant with regards to foreign clubs (i.e. non European) where an element of intuition and knowledge of the subject is required to make genuine edits that aren't simply trying to conform to a standard that really doesn't work. Certainly the blanket application of "name of topic" to the header box would have been interesting in say, for instance, Spain. Where teams such as Athletic Bilbao aren't actually Athletic Bilbao any more than Rangers are "Glasgow Rangers".

Teams such as SS Lazio, A.C. Milan...well you could argue against the SS, or AS (such as for Roma), but the A.C. obviously is essential. In the end the individual cases are there to be discussed on the individual boards.--Koncorde (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C" is obviously the club's full name. "Wolves" is the abbreviation. Dropping the "F.C." from the full name is just a bastardisation; just because they don't read it out on the pools results doesn't mean that's how the club should be referred to. I agree with The Rambling Man that the need for a special parameter for such in the infobox is questionable. I believe in addition that it is ill-advised to refer to a club by an informal name by default in articles; Even in the context of an article about Wolverhampton, for instance, I'd expect an encylopedia to present information in the form "the town's largest football club is Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C" and not just "Wolverhampton Wanderers" as a matter of formality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So in your view are nevigation bars at the bottom of a football club article's page "bastardising" a clubs name by ommitting the FC (at present it lists all the other teams in the same division as the club your viewing, with their full name minus the "F.C."). Look at the league table in the "Premiership 2007-08" article. Are all 20 club names in that table being bastardised becuase they omit FC? Should FC be added to each and every club in that table? Thats the only part of their full name thats missing afterall? Its the same with Lists of champion club of a division in a division's article and many many more examples where its just the full name of the club minus the F.C. so your claim that leaving it out on the Infobox header "bastardises" the clubs name, in my personal opinion, doesnt hold up! Either that or its being done on a very grand scale and you're choosing to ignore it! Sarumio (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an argument for removing the "F.C." in special cases where space is limited, such as in navboxen, or in specific instances where a social norm allows for it (such as results tables or league standings). In other circumstances, yes, I'd argue that chopping it off is being needlessly informal. As for being done on a grand scale, I think the canonical example here is football (soccer); we never had a proper discussion, a handful of editors basically kept it enforced based on the claim that it was the established norm, and it was only when we had an extensive formal discussion that we could finally stop bickering about it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I made a comment about how much this idea missed the point, but apparently it wasn't quite loud enough. - Dudesleeper / Talk  09:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the encyclopedias I have, none use the full name - admittedly because most are football encyclopedias that don't feel the need to repeat constantly "Football Club" or "F.C." but the point remains. If you think saying "The largest football club in the city is Wolverhampton Wolves F.C." then you're basically repeating F.C. for the sake of?


 * In the end my issue remains not simply with the infobox, but with an awful lot of poor 'intros' to clubs and repeated information/terms that add nothing.


 * Don't really want to keep bringing individual cases up, but Wolves are generally dealt with sans F.C., , , , . I can understand its inclusion in the header, and even its inclusion in the opening sentence to explain the F.C.  But I don't get why either the infobox needs to repeat itself so much, or why the article does - or (as is generally the case) they all repeat themselves.  Stylistically it's amateurish.--Koncorde (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As previously mentioned, unless we're willing to have the introductions be: Manchester United are a football club in Manchester, England..., we're stuck with the occupational hazard. So, for the third or fourth time now, what would your (more sensible) intro be? - Dudesleeper / Talk  20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the issue is more with the ones that repeat ad-hoc everything. Do we really need to say "Barnsley Football Club are an English Football Club, in Barnsley, England.  They currently play in the Football League Championship." etc etc.  Personally I feel a lot of the information does not require jamming into the opening 2 lines.  "Manchester United are a football club based in Manchester, England" isn't a bad start by any stretch of the imagination.  However personally I'd like to see it be more specific.  Something such as:  "Manchester United are an English Football Club based in Stretford, Greater Manchester.  They have played their home games at the 76,212 capacity Old Trafford stadium since 1910.  The team were a founder member of the Premier League and have so far won the title the most of any team since its inception." noting of course that I haven't read the Manchester Utd article or have any idea how it currently reads.  In most cases you already have the article title saying F.C. and a subheading giving the full name Football Club, you then have at least 3 repeats of Football, League, England or combinations there-of, not counting town, location and stadium or combinations thereof.


 * For instance, in one encyclopedia I have Mansfield are described thusly: "Mansfield Town.  English football club, nicknamed the Stags.  The Stags, based at the Field Mill ground, were founded in 1910 as successors to Mansfield Wesleyans (formed in 1891).  They were elected to the League, as members of the Third Division (South) in 1931 at the seventh attempt."  Succint, direct and not up its own bum trying to cram everything in for the sake of piping to every wiki on the web and/or dumbing down the art of actually joining the dotted lines.


 * Many articles start with full frontal assaults of gibberish that barely warrants being called "English" for its almost foreign use of the language.--Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was almost on board until that last sentence. - Dudesleeper / Talk  17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should try reading some of them:


 * Arsenal Football Club (also known as Arsenal, The Arsenal or The Gunners) are an English professional football club based in Holloway, North London. They play in the Premier League and are one of the most successful clubs in English football, having won thirteen First Division and Premier League titles and ten FA Cups.


 * Birmingham City Football Club is a Premiership English professional football club based in the city of Birmingham. Formed in 1875 as Small Heath Alliance, they became Small Heath in 1888, Birmingham F.C. in 1905, finally becoming Birmingham City F.C. in 1943.[2] They currently play in the Premier League, the top tier of English football, which is the level at which they have spent the majority of their history.[3]


 * Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside. Liverpool plays in the Premier League, and is the most successful club in the history of English football, having won more trophies than any other English club. They have won a record 18 English League titles, although the last time they won the title was in 1990. Liverpool have won five European Cups, an English record. Only A.C. Milan and Real Madrid have won Europe's premier club competition more times. They have won the FA Cup and League Cup seven times. Liverpool have played at Anfield since they were founded in 1892. However, plans have been formed to start work on a new 60,000 all reserved seat stadium, which could be raised to 80,000 depending on planning permission, in the summer of 2010 near Stanley Park. The new stadium will be funded by Tom Hicks and George Gillett, who became the club's owners on February 6, 2007. Liverpool have a large and diverse fanbase, who hold a string of long-standing rivalries with several other clubs; the most notable of these is with neighbours Everton, with whom they regularly contest the Merseyside derby. Liverpool have a fierce rivalry with Manchester United, due to the success of both clubs, as well as their proximity to each other. The club's fans have been involved in two major disasters. At the Heysel Stadium disaster, 39 Juventus F.C. fans died when a wall collapsed after crowd trouble in the 1985 European Cup Final, and the Hillsborough Disaster in 1989 where 96 Liverpool fans lost their lives.


 * The concept of paragraphs apparently doesn't exist for the Liverpool article, and others are chronic in their consistent repeat of information in a way that I could only describe as they've been put together by a someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of football, but the writing skills of a first year senior. Others look like they have been written by a Belgian, or someone from Holland with grammatical errors or sentence structure I've really only ever seen used by them (like the repeated use of qualifiers and stilted sentence structure).--Koncorde (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the extra Premiership that found its way into Birmingham City F.C. It resulted from half-corrected vandalism which I must have missed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Liverpool intro is indeed terrible, not from a repetition of football club, etc. standpoint but from a Liverpool standpoint. As for the others, I think we'll agree to disagree that some repetitions can be avoided. - Dudesleeper / Talk  12:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(re-inset) You questioned my final sentence related to them not being written in English. I qualified it. It is still entirely possible to write an article intro without overusing statements. Currently too many articles follow an A B C policy in an extremely poor way. The other two are random articles selected that would repeat Football/Football Club etc a minimum of 3 times within the space of a sentence + the usage within the article header and infobox on two seperate occasions. Or in the case of Arsenal, manage to repeat the club name 3 times in the space of 10 words at the start of the article. Visually that means Arsenal currently reads like "(article)Arsenal F.C. (infobox) Arsenal F.C. Arsenal Football Club, Arsenal, The Arsenal or The Gunners, (infobox) Arsenal Football Club, (infobox) The Gunners, English Football, Premier league, English Football, Premier League.  Classy.--Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to rewrite the intros over the course of the close-season in the manner that you have inside your head and in the manner that obviously eludes other editors. - Dudesleeper / Talk  19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is going to be my last comment on this, because it's getting plain daft. But I agree with you, that we can't change "Manchester United Football Club are a football club based in Manchester, ..." What we can do is try and keep down the number of times we say F.C. or Football Club after that to a bare minimum. Peanut4 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that affect the infobox, which usually precedes the article's prose? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the article was meant to segue. Currently it jars.--Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Views of Dweller
This is a wearisome and tendencious argument. The point being discussed is so bizarre and silly that when it's complete, I'm definitely going to add it to Lamest edit wars. What bothers me far more than whether all/none or some clubs have "FC" in their infobox is the aggressive and hectoring attitudes being struck here, telling people what they can and can't discuss and using inappropriate tone. I no longer care what is decided, but care passionately about how it is decided. Life is too short to edit war and row about a pair of initials in an infobox. Let me remind you that whatever you write here is being recorded for posterity ... and may end up being lampooned at Lamest edit wars. Or worse. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As Chris mentioned, it took five years to hash out the association/football/soccer thing, so grab a beer and kick up your heels. - Dudesleeper / Talk  14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't mind how long it takes for this to sort itself out, just I greatly dislike the tone of some of the contributions above (and elsewhere on this topic). I mean, for goodness sake, getting heated about a pair of initials. --Dweller (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the majority are just getting heated about a certain individual who latches onto the views of those who support him, rather than make his own. That aside, I think there are enough editors of note involved to make the discussion hold some value. - Dudesleeper / Talk  14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

View of Richard Rundle ("fchd")
My view remains that the infobox header should basically be the same as the article name, so in most English cases include F.C. or A.F.C. - dropping any disambiguation needed to split articles that aren't actually part of the name (e.g. Wellington (Somerset) F.C. will just be Wellington F.C.) Furthermore, while doing some updates to Northern Counties East League clubs yesterday I did some edits to club names in the infobox, one of which I replicated in the header (which I didn't really mean to do while the discussion continues), and User:Sarumio reverted almost immediately. - fchd (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to close as no consensus
In relpy to a comment from Samurio at my talk page, I replicate here. I had thought based on the previous discussion there was agreement on this issue to proceed with a rule 'C' just for the infobox, but it seems that old issues have re-emerged, and people who weren't around for the original poll disagree with the direction of this process, and want to open it to a general debate. For the record I have no problem with any of this, but I thought it prudent to point out that its been 4 days since the proposal, and I don't see any consensus for a rule 'C' emerging at all. As such, I can only see a close as no consensus outcome, and whatever that brings for wikipedia, be it stalemate or opening a proper wider debate. Me, as per others above, I find it trivial to be beyond the banal to discuss this infobox parameter any further than where we are/aren't now, (i.e I do have a clear opinion on rule C that I think is sensible, but I'm not willing to be banned for it), so I suggest, if no-one moves significantly in a couple of days, I think this particular discussion is dead in the water, and should be closed as such, lest it be orphaned in wiki ambiguity (I hate it when that happens). Anyway, that's my thoughts on it, agree/disagree/ignore as appropriate. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a simple resolution to this debate to request all parties to desist from making changes to the parameter without simultaneously making a substantial edit to the article in question. I don't give a sh*t if the parameter oscillates between xxxx and xxxx F.C. as long as each time it happens, the article undergoes an update, improvement, expansion, tidy or gets an additional reference. Feel free to oppose or support below. E  P  01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a reason RfCs stay open for a month and not a week. Despite the triviality of the subject, this will hit upwards of 800 articles on British teams alone. And consensus is not just a head count; there have to be arguments to back the proposals up. I'd rather it were left open for a while. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the strip box
I use MSIE7, and I've noticed that on the strips pictures, the colour of the shorts extends to a horizontal line between shorts and jersey for roughly 3/4 the strip size in each direction (see picture). Does anyone else see this, or is it just me? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When I looked with IE7 all kits, which ever team I went to had it... though I use FF3 and there's no problem there. ← chandler 04:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Updated to infobox
I've updated this template to use infobox as a base. This makes the template more maintainable for the future, ensures that it fits as closely with other infoboxen as possible (especially the other football boxes, which I've been migrating during the week) and shouldn't have any negative side-effects. If anyone spots any problems with edge cases (or if there's something obviously broken) please let me know.

One purely aesthetic change that's been made is to remove mandatory attributes. As these aren't generally of any use if not specified, I don't see why they should be included if not filled in. if there's consensus that we want to use them anyway I can re-add them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Meddi has reverted this twice, apparently due to a failure to understand the purpose of the "title" attribute in infobox. I've left him a note to see if there's anything more to this, but I don't believe so. If anyone else objects to this or wants talked through the template code please let me know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks absoutely horrendous, you have no consensus from the football community to take the top off the box. I urge the admin to undo thumperward's destruction of the box until he has consensus to make it look so bad. - Meddi (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Silence implies consensus. You're the only person who has strongly disagreed with the change (a change, I may add, which was also rolled out to all the tournament and league templates and will probably eventually be carried out on the stadium infobox) and you've made no attempt to discuss it with the community until now (and I suspect that it was only the preemptive protection of the template which stopped you from reverting it today). The "top" has not been "taken off of the box"; the template now uses the defined header system documented for Wikipedia's tables, which is the most appropriate (and semantic) approach. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto?
When and why was the "motto" parameter added to the infobox? I don't see why it's necessary, tbh. – PeeJay 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Loutheblue1878 added it temporarily a month ago. Dudesleeper reverted it from the template, but didn't revert the documentation. I've now fixed that. The current infobox code doesn't support and will ignore it if present. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's back in the documentation but doesn't display. Removing from docs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken microformat
this edit broke the hCard microformat in the template,  should warp just the club's name, while   should apply the the whole table. These classes are mentioned in the template's documentation. Please will somebody fix it? Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Change

| bodyclass = fn org

to

| bodyclass = vcard | titleclass = fn org

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 00:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

chrtitle parameter
Currently, the "chrtitle" parameter affects both the "Owner" and "Chairman" fields in the infobox. I propose that the "Owner" field be changed to:

or even:

This would be very helpful. Thanks. – PeeJay 17:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. I'd go for changing "chrtitle" to "owntitle". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed to use owntitle. --- RockMFR 00:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kit section
When putting kits, the titles below them are Home colours, Away colours, and Third colours. A lot of teams do not have a specific jersey for away games, but do have alternate jerseys which they might use every once in a while. Is there a way that instead of saying Away colours, it says Alternate colours?

Digirami (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Add  to the article's infobox description. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any chance we could delink two of the colours? It's clear overlinking. - Dudesleeper / Talk  23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the logic there is that any of the three strips may be included without the others; thus, it means there's a link even if the home strip isn't shown. I think this is pretty weak though, and I'd be happy to strip the latter two links if you want. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit of an eyesore, to be honest, but I can live it with it if nobody else is offended. - Dudesleeper / Talk  22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

add a caption
Quick and easy. Change:


 * image    =

to


 * image    =
 * caption  =

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ SkierRMH  ( talk ) 20:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

hide caption on the template page
Minor tidying to get rid of the weird floating "Infobox football club" on the template page. Change:

| title    =

to

| title    =

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to "current" field
editprotected

Minor semantic edit, changing the type of the "current" field to "below" and not "data". Just copy over the contents of the new sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Elonka 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

CEO field
There is a CEO field in the documentation but this is not in the template code. Shouldn't there be one? Qwghlm (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Most caps
What about adding a Most caps line? There is already a all time scorer, makes sense to have all tme appearance maker. Yatesy1988 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding this. There's a chance we could get carried away with this, but including these two all-inclusive statistics makes sense to me. -  Dudesleeper  talk  18:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it is not displayed as "most caps". Club appearances are never referred to as "caps" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I noticed that after I'd commented. -  Dudesleeper  talk  18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just thought about this as well. It makes a lot of sense. --Half Price (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional of cleanup cat
editprotected

Requesting sync with the sandbox to add a cleanup category if an article uses an image for the strip and not colour / pattern values. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done--Aervanath (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

hCard microformat 'label' property
editprotected

Please add the hCard microformat "label" property, by changing:

to:

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And its working, thanks. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor coding updates
Requesting re-sync with the sandbox for a few minor coding tweaks. No change in output. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ceo
Could somebody please add CEO section to the infobox template profile? It's on the document but not in the template.


 * Please, prepare new version of the template in the sandbox. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do, please use, as below.  Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

hCard classes
Please include additional hCard microformat properties, thus:

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please propose new code changes in the sandbox. I don't want to break anything. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Alt text support
As per WP:ALT images should have alt text (or no link) to support WP:ACCESSIBILITY for visually impaired readers. This infobox has many problems in this area, mainly because the graphics for the kit will cause a screen reader to say something like "Team colours Team colours Team colours ..." over and over, once for each of the little images that go into the team colors.

I have fixed this in the sandbox, have tested it in the testcases, and have documented the result. I suggest that the following changes be installed into the main version: Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Install this edit into Template:Infobox football club.
 * Install this edit into Template:Football kit. This change adds "link=" to most of the images, as suggested by WP:ALT, and adds alt text to the first image (this follows the March 2009 W3C Text Alternative Proposal). This is the core of the fix for the problem noted above.


 * No further comment so I've added a editprotected. Eubulides (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text update
The Mediawiki software changed, so that now must one use "linkalt" to mark an image as purely decorative, rather than just "link"; see WP:ALT . Also, I expect that it's better for the football kit to follow the W3C recommendations and put alt text into the 1st image. So, could you please install to Infobox football club, and also install  to Football kit? I have tested this in Template:Infobox football club/testcases. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 10:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Link fixing
Please can an admin change the "List of football (soccer) stadiums by capacity" link under "capacity" to "List of association football stadia by capacity", even tho its redirecting to that page it need to have the direct link. --- HonorTheKing (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MLS specific parameters?
This template includes a half dozen parameters listed as MLS specific (firstgame, largestwin, worstdefeat, topscorer, fansgroup, and honours). Some diligent editors are working on getting the Seattle Sounders FC up to FA status, and one of the discussions that came up was the infobox clutter that arises among the MLS team articles from these parameters (the Colorado Rapids probably being the worst offender). None of the FA football articles use these fields, but none of the FA articles are from the MLS, so we're unsure what to do, and had some questions: If these should be used by any team, it would seem the other FA football articles can (should?) be updated. If they shouldn't be used, why not remove these parameters? ← George talk 00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are these parameters MLS specific? They seem like they could apply to any team.
 * Should they be used or not? They can lead to infobox clutter.


 * This was a originally a compromise struck with back when MLS used its own infobox variants for everything, when I merged the MLS templates with the generic footy infoboxes. I'm happy for these MLS-specific stats to be removed if the editors working on MLS articles are. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if it is decided by users working on MLS articles that the parameters are no longer necessary for use in their articles, they should be removed, as they definitely have no use in any other football articles. – PeeJay 09:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I work a lot on MLS articles, and have always felt those stats were unneccessary. They can very easily be added to the articles in prose without cluttering up infoboxes. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with removal. US fans usually try to embrace the international nature of the sport so I was surprised to see MLS teams going their own way. I'll make a mention at the US task force also but there is less traffic there. I think George, Skoty, and I are on the same page for the SSFC article. Should mentions be made on individual articles to make sure we don't hit any roadblocks during implementation?Cptnono (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A friendly notice is never a bad idea. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of all MLS params except American (American spelling and using Stadium instead of Ground), as the proper word usage for that article should continue. Yukata Ninja (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I forgot about the "American" parameter. Yes, that one should be kept for WP:ENGVAR's sake, but the rest should go. – PeeJay 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with keeping the American parameter. I didn't list it with the other MLS-specific parameters intentionally. ← George talk 23:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to keep the honors and supporter's groups perameters. Both are fairly easy to maintain and the list of honors a team acquires are fairly limited. Also bef ore we go making this fairly sweeping change I'd ask we wait more than a few hours and actually have some discussion on this as I do think the original reasons there was a compromise still exist. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason I can think of, as to why the compromise was even offered in the first place, was to appease User:Grant.Alpaugh. Nevertheless, I would be willing to hear new arguments for the retention of these parameters. There is clearly significant opposition to their retention, even within the MLS community, but you're right that this discussion needs a bit more time to come to any conclusion. – PeeJay 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ease of maintenance is great but it is still not uniform throughout the project which is part of the reasoning. It also doesn't look far enough into the future. There is a possibility of Wikipeida being around for many more years and an MLS team winning many trophies in various competitions throughout that period.Cptnono (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'll admit it's possible there might be more competitions in the future that MLS is involved in, right now there is not. Per WP:CRYSTAL I would say any future competitions are irrelevant. As for not being uniform, it was uniform across MLS so while the whole project isn't uniform, neither is it uniform to have American English. But we've made one exception, and the exception for MLS has existed for some time now. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think just from an aesthetic point of view, having the infoboxes simply present the most pertinent information is enough. If the first game and biggest win and loss and all that are so important, surely it would be better to have a more detailed description in the prose than have a cursory result stat with no context. --JonBroxton (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually have no problem removing the biggest win and loss and first game. I only think keeping supporters groups and honors would be useful. Also neither parameter is that cluttered. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this, but I think that consistency is important. There's nothing "MLS-specific" to the parameters listed as MLS-specific, so the question needs to be related to all football/soccer team articles—should all football/soccer related articles have the option to list their supporters groups and honors in the infobox, or should none of them? ←  George talk 06:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest none of them. It would be much better to have more detailed sections on supporters and honors in the prose of the article, where the detail of the info can be explained in more depth, rather than just a cursory, relatively meaningless line in an infobox. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. The infobox should summarise the most important facts about the club, and IMO the existence of a supporters' club is not one of those.  What encyclopedic benefit would there be to my adding "Supporters' group: Gillingham F.C. Supporters' Club" to the Gillingham article.  As for honours, as pointed out above that would get ridiculously large for successful clubs if WP is around in 50 or even 20 years' time - imagine what Manchester United's would look like even now!  The infobox should provide the key information but not at the expense of looking ridiculous, and a box that extended halfway down the article would look just that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying add the parameters across all soccer articles. These two could remain for the MLS and like leagues that don't have a long list of possible honors and for which a limited number of supporters groups are a big part of the team culture. And as for being uniform it would keep MLS uniform with the other North American sports league articles which all list championships/honors in the infoboxes (ie: NFL, CFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc...) Gateman1997 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think it was more important for MLS infoboxes to mirror infoboxes of other football teams around the world rather than infoboxes of other sports in America. You wouldn't expect English football team infoboxes and English cricket club infoboxes to be uniform. You wouldn't expect Swedish football team infoboxes and Swedish ice hockey team infoboxes to be uniform. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be some mirroring, and it's not like data that is in the worldwide soccer boxes wouldn't be in the MLS boxes as well. They would just contain one or two additional parameters. And yes I'd expect MLS to an extent to mirror what at least 5 other major North American leagues have (not just American leagues, Canadian ones too). Gateman1997 (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So I looked at some of the templates for other American sports Gateman1997 listed, and they don't seem to list supporters groups. So I'm not seeing much reason to include that (not to mention that it's going to be problematic, with very fan trying to add their group of buddies to the list). I'm not sure that keeping the honors in the infobox is a bad idea though. Are there reasons to not include honors as an optional parameter, for all football clubs? ← George talk 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's possible that it could get a tad cluttered for a top level team like Man U, but what is the maximum number of honors a team like Manchester United or Real Madrid go for? For Man U, FA Cup, UEFA Cup, Premiership championship, Club WC, and maybe one or two more? Even if they're all listed out with the number of times won that's not a huge clutter, even for a big team like Manchester. And I suspect for most teams the list would be much much smaller. Gateman1997 (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, Manchester United have won 11 different competitions since their establishment, and that's not including competitions now played in by their reserve team. TBH, I can see 11 extra lines in the infobox looking quite unruly. – PeeJay 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but they can be collapsed (as Olympic medal templates are in footybio2). Honours are rather an important aspect of most team articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What honors would and would not be acceptable? The more complicated it gets the worse it becomes. We could do all sorts of fun stuff to get the information in but in all reality it should be a change across the whole project and not just MLS per the reasoning above.Cptnono (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's take that conversation there, then. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm coming in late to this conversation, but I wanted to add that I'm in agreement with the removal of the parameters listed as MLS specific in the template docs. They tend to add a lot of clutter to the infobox without a lot of value. IMHO an infobox should be as simple as possible only providing the most important, fundamental information regarding the club and not novelties such as first win and loss. It seems that the consensus so far is to remove them all with one exception possibly being honours which appears to be nearly split among the editors in the discussion. It looks like User:JonBroxton has gone through the MLS articles and cleaned out their usage, so (with the exception of maybe honours) the rest of them can probably be removed now. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 01:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One other thing... I search through all of the discussion archives and couldn't find the discussion with referred to above.  Does anyone have a pointer they can share.  I'd like to review it if it's still available.  Thanks! --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 01:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC it was mostly held either on WT:FOOTY or on his talk page. It's certainly still available. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Found it here. What a lively discussion it was.  Grant's points, while mostly valid and relevant, were overshadowed with his objectionable debate tactics.  He's since been banned from the encyclopedia.  Anyway, now that we're shooting for a few WP:FA quality MLS team articles, cleanliness and simplicity has to win over novelties in the infobox. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to try to wrap this discussion up, is there consensus to (a) remove the parameters listed as MLS-specific, except honours and American, and (b) not classify honours or American as MLS-specific in the documentation, as either can be used for non-MLS teams. Articles can choose whether or not to use the honours parameter at their own discretion (depending on importance and length), and non-MLS teams that prefer the American English variants can use the American parameter. Future discussions may lead to a different consensus, but I think there's some general consensus on at least making those changes for now? Does anyone disagree? ← George talk 04:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think it would be better to describe the honors in more detail in prose rather than having them in the infobox, but apart from that it all looks fine to me. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed these items from the infobox as they are beginning to be used in non-American articles. Plus as it appears Grant no longer edits, there is no longer the threat of a "breakaway" project (which was the only reason I added them to the infobox to begin with). Number  5  7  12:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

American language perameter
While I'm thinking about it, the "American = true" option changes Ground to Stadium. Could it also automatically change "Manager" to "Head Coach", as the term Head Coach is used instead of Manager 99% of the time in US sports terminology. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If this change could be made it would be fairly beneficial as manager in US terminology is generally reserved for baseball teams. Gateman1997 (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this why we have the "mgrtitle" parameter? It may be slightly more cumbersome, but it allows for any number of different titles, e.g. "first team coach", "director of football", "head coach", etc. FYI, there is also the "chrtitle" parameter in case the title of the guy who heads the business is known by a different title than "chairman", such as "chief executive", "CEO" or even "co-chairman". – PeeJay 09:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Let's face it: the title of the team's manager is arbitrary the world over, and I'd be unsurprised if the US wasn't the only country where "head coach" was preferred in general. Rather than trying to guess this in advance, we already allow an override. It's not as if there are so many MLS teams that this is a huge amount of work. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stadium/Ground
There should be an option to use a "stadium" parameter rather than the "ground" one, without having to select the "American = true" option. The term stadium is widely used in most, if not all English speaking countries. It's not specific to American English. The term ground, on the other hand, is specific to a select group of countries. Also, it looks out of place on the infoboxes of Italian, Spanish, French, etc. football clubs, when it is sitting beside "Stadio..., Estadio... , Stade... , etc." People should have the choice of the term most suitable to their club, stadium or country. Onetonycousins (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)