Template talk:Infobox football club/Archive 6

Chair/manager title
BSD Is it possible to make a default fallback for the chair and manager title parameters? as it is, if only the name field is used, the names stay "floating" in the infobox. --Ben Stone 06:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

URL?
Surprised that there isn't an official team URL included in the infobox. I don't know a modern team that doesn't have one. WP guidelines suggest avoiding an external links section and this would go a long way to avoiding adding the team's URL in that section. What would it take to add that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Post a notice at WP:FOOTY and see if there are any objections. If not, make an editrequest. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  14:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support URLs are used widely in infoboxes. Please ensure that the display is in the format  and not  .  Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this - there is no reason to cloak the URL with the redundant "official website" text rather than just displaying the actual URL - the fact that it is the official website is already apparent from the fact that it listed next to the parameter "website". It should be  rather than


 * There is a  parameter, but it doesn't appear in the documentation, so I don't know what format it expects. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it takes a URL and displays it as [ Club home page] . Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Date to change league for promoted/relegated clubs
At this time every year, it seems there's a lot of confusion about when a club's league should be changed when promoted or relegated. For English clubs, there was some discussion several years ago here that a good standard date to change the club's league would be 1 July, the official "start" of the new season. If there's no objection, perhaps we could adopt that as the standard on this template for English clubs, with a recommendation that clubs in other national associations also do so on their official start dates. Northumbrian (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only problem I can conceive of is that not all associations might have a definite start date. At least we can nail this down for England though. – PeeJay 22:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto, English club football is done and dusted by late-May, so 1 July is a good timestamp to base edits on. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 July is technically correct for the start of the new English season, and I'd have no problem with that being our official date of change. So long as it's written down somewhere, clearly, preferably in big writing, in an appropriate guideline (or several). It isn't just an infobox problem, though. Conference National teamlist went to 2010–11 within minutes of the final whistle on the last day of their regular season, and Darlington were added to Former football league members before League Two had finished theirs... Though in practice it might be a bit tricky to defend 1 July if the reliable sources i.e. Premier League and Football League change over in mid-lateish June. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from DroopyDoggy, 13 May 2010
I'd like to add some features to the infobox: most capped player, shortname, club's web page and a palmares section divide in national and international trohpies

DroopyDoggy (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide the requisite code, or wait for someone to do that for you, before using . Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The website parameter is already in there, and I think that a shortname parameter would be a good idea, but I don't agree with the rest of your suggestions. For some clubs, an "honours" section would be huge, and each club should have a section lower down the page with a list of their honours anyway. – PeeJay 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Left arm
editprotected

The arm on the left currently links to File:Kit left arm.svg, whereas no other part of the kit links to anywhere. Could an administrator please adjust the difference by removing the link? --Магьосник (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, that's a problem with Template:Football kit, not this template. – PeeJay 20:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll make a request on the respective talk page. --Магьосник (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

club using different home ground
Can someone please add a ground2 and a capacity2 field, I found a team using two different home ground and the capacity field is then placing itself wrongly. // Smartskaft (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The editprotected template should only be used when you have a change to be made- you'll need to come up with the code first. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Small change, capitalization
Can someone change "Head Coach" to "Head coach". I've never seen the position of manager/head coach capitalized like that before. Thanks. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Former names
There is a field for former names, aptly title "formernames" in the usage section of the /doc page, but it is not actually included in the template. After a quick scan, I couldn't find a record of the field in the article history or on this talk page. Can we have this field enabled? Or was there a decision to remove it that wasn't transferred to the /doc page? Thanks. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Tweak for print
edit protected | below     =

Should be replaced with

| below     =

This will remove the "current season" from printed PDFs, where it serves no purpose, but will remain in the online version (since it is useful there). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Please fix redirects: Lists of nicknames in football (soccer) → Lists of nicknames in association football and Football club names → Association football club names. Thanks! Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New Eintracht Frankfurt jersey
Could anyone create the two new Eintracht Frankfurt shirts as a template? It would be very appreciated! Pictures: http://www.eintracht.de/aktuell/bilder/368/ :-) Cheers! -Lemmy- (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing unhelpful links
The links to the headings Full name, Nickname(s) and Capacity are Easter eggs that most readers wouldn't follow and would be surprised at the destination if they did. The link to Stadium/Ground is unnecessary as it's a well-understood concept. Could all these links be removed please? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Apps + goals
How about adding paramaters for 'Most appearances' and 'Most goals'? Seems useful to have, hence why they are used in international team infoboxes. GiantSnowman 22:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean in an individual player's box? Or in that of a team? I suppose it's the latter, if not i'm at a loss...If so, it seems like a good idea, several club boxes need update on a season-by-season basis, so to have that extra info is not an incovenience at all, just something else to update. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would see that as somewhat of a feature creep. Next we'd have number of league titles, number of cups, number of European trophies etc etc. Aside from the foundation date, I think all the information in the club infobox should be current information about the club - where they play, what league they are in, who is their manager/chairman etc, rather than staring to add historical records. Number   5  7  00:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see the merit in having top appearances etc as this is something that is often quoted of clubs. The text would need to make it clear whether it's league games or all senior matches, although I would suggest the latter. However, I do understand the point that No 57 makes, I suppose you could end up adding various parameters and it could get very long. Eldumpo (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The joy of creating consensus is that we can prevent ridiculous parameters. An infobox should be a summary of the club, and I feel that the record appearance holder/goal scorer is important, as it is something which is frequently mentioned for both player and club. GiantSnowman 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One editor's summary may be another editor's superfluous information. For instance it could be argued that the years of league, cup, etc. wins should be included not simply a count. For most teams that would be a very short, reasonable list and very important to that team. For other teams it would be a long list.
 * Other parameters that some may find essential: Years of operation. Years at current level. Number of managers. Supporters groups. Sponsor. Top goalkeeper. Retired jersey/shirt numbers (a common honour in North American sports so I can see MLS needing that at some point in the future, possibly as soon as Beckham's contract expires). Most own goals (OK, even I admit my reductio ad absurdum is becoming too absurd).
 * So perhaps as we discuss adding essential fields, we should determine which fields are and which are not essential. And if they're essential, how have we done without them until now? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Season (Current or Previous)
I am pretty sure every thing in wikipedia should be recent. I am sure Jimmy wales does not want stale information either. I kinda feel even he is biased with clubs because of his choice of colours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaboy123 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that WP:RECENTISM argues against that. Also, the season and position parameters aren't about how a team is doing this season (which I know is your point). That's what the current season link is for at the bottom of the rendered template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

de-link "colours" for away and third kits (only need link for home kit)
Hi, I noticed "colours" in the uniform colours is linked three times, in the "home colours", "away colours", and "third colours". It should really be linked only for the home colours, otherwise it appears that the link is different for the other two when actually it is the same.

i.e. Kit (association football)   - just need to remove the "  and the trailing "" from the away (second kit) and third (third kit) colours. Thanks in advance! Facts707 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

additions to template
Is it possible to have custom titles in the infobox, or request them here to be included in the template?

'Assistant Manager', 'Motto' (or slogan), etc?

Yabbox (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think we need any more parameters in this infobox. Number   5  7  09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The assistant manager need only be named in the article text, as can the club's motto. – PeeJay 10:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand the reason not to have too many items listed in the template. It's just that we have two French managers so the French flag appears twice.  No harm in that of course, except it gives an untrue suggestion that the club is French controlled, which it in fact is not.  See Forbidden_City_Football_Club and you will see what I mean!  Thanks for the fast reply by the way. (ps is this the correct way to reply?) Yabbox (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly there shouldn't be any flags in the infobox (so that should solve the main problem). Secondly, it looks like the club is non-notable anyway. Number   5  7  11:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the flags were included as viewed on other wiki pages, such Midland_Football_Alliance Beijing_Guoan_F.C. Beijing_Institute_of_Technology_FC I note on larger club football pages the flag is not normally listed and so I shall edit this.  As for the the proposal for deletion, my reply is 'every team has to start somewhere'.  And so in 100 years, the history of the club will be properly documented!  In all seriousness, the club is small but I can't see why it should be removed from wiki.  If I were to split the two teams, Summer Palace and Forbidden City into their own pages would that help, as well as add more a page and information on the league in which the club competes?  Any other thoughts? Thanks Yabbox (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't seem to help - the club doesn't play at a level that makes it notable. Number   5  7  12:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this is a decision to be made solely by yourself? Or is there a process of decision? I am hoping User:PeeJay2K3 (who commented above) may have more favourable comments, being a footballer himself!  Anyway, any final decision understood.
 * You can remove the prod template if you wish, but I will then take it to WP:AFD, where there will be a discussion on whether it will be deleted. I also play football myself, but this club (and league) seems to be equivalent to a Sunday league club in England, which is completely non-notable. Number   5  7  12:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is similar to a Sunday League, indeed. However this league has a notably foreign presence in an otherwise Chinese dominated sport in Beijing and so is useful to be reported and 'found' by any English speaking people with an interest in the development of football in a foreign country, or Beijing specifically.  And I believe English Sunday league clubs are listed on wiki. Should this discussion be moved to another page? Yabbox (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This makes it sounds like it's on here to advertise it to people, which is expressly not what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps best to raise the issue on WT:FOOTY if you so wish, or remove the prods and trigger an AfD. Number   5  7  12:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yabbox, your hope for more favourable comments from me is going to go unanswered, I'm afraid. The club doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability criteria and wouldn't survive an AfD discussion. – PeeJay 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS
Hello.

"Capacity" is not a proper noun. Could somebody therefore edit the template and change on the line data6 to "(capacity xxxxx)" instead of "(Capacity xxxxx)"?

Thanks

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Number   5  7  10:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

shortname doesnt appear to be working
the short name doesnt appear to be working-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 20:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't actually exist in the template code anymore. I don't see the purpose of it, so perhaps we should remove it from the documentation as well. Number   5  7  21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i thought that might what it was, as there was other old deprecated parameter in that article i am working on but that one was in the docs so thought there was a bug-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed it (and a couple of other parameters long since removed) from the documentation. Number   5  7  08:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Exporting template to other wiki sites
Anyone with success exporting this template and rendering in other wiki sites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panama2005 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

SVG kits
I'm trying to get a kit in the club info box to work with svg files. It works when using Template:Football kit, but I can't get it to work on this template. Help?! Martin Le Roy (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Most appearances
We have a 'Top goalscorer' parameter, why not a 'Most appearances' as well? Makes sense to have both. GiantSnowman 12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Think you'll find we haven't... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We did, see, why/when was it removed? I'm positive I raised this at FOOTY sometime last year and it was still present... GiantSnowman 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See It was one of those added as a pragmatic measure and removed once the need disappeared. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How on earth is 'topscorer' MLS specific? GiantSnowman 13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't. But there was never a consensus for adding a topscorer parameter, or anything else with feature-creep potential, apart from in that specific MLS-related situation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They're hardly obscure stats to ref and are those kind of records are often covered in reliable sources. GiantSnowman 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The infobox isn't an appropriate place for club records. Number  5  7  16:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? These are key records; after all, we're not talking about 'highest attendance' or whatever. GiantSnowman 16:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is top goalscorer more important than record attendance? Personally I'm more interested in the latter. Number   5  7  16:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The former is covered more than the latter, and I believe readers will find it more useful. I mean we have it for international teams, why not clubs? GiantSnowman 17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first two statements sound a bit like original research - who are we to say what readers will find more useful. All the statistical yearbooks I have cover both. But I digress. I do not see the need for any information on club records in infoboxes - they need to be short and sweet, not getting bogged down in detail. International teams infoboxes are a totally different beast to club ones, so what they contain is immaterial. Number   5  7  17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me re-word - I find it more useful ;) GiantSnowman 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please update
Please sync from the sandbox, where I have made a number of improvements:
 * 1) Improved hCard microformat metadata
 * 2) Split ground/ stadium capacity into its own field; simplified code
 * 3) Added a ground coordinates parameter
 * 4) added whitespace to the code, to improve readability.

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have these changes been discussed anywhere? Number   5  7  08:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. We've been discussing and adding microformats and coordinates to infoboxes like this since 2007. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant amongst WikiProject Football. Number   5  7  20:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be wise to at least notify the project of these proposed changes, as they will affect thousands of articles. I will do so now. Number   5  7  17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

[ec] This will also resolve the issue detailed at, above (in 2010!), allowing the use of Plainlist in such cases. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what #1 means; #2 and #3 make absolute sense; and #4 needs further clarification. GiantSnowman 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * #1 has link for your convenience, but basically, better HTML classes to "label" the data in the infobox. #4 - I simply spaced out the code in the template to make it easier for people editing it; no difference to readers, nor editors using the template in an article. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There being no further comment, and no objections, may we now move forward with this? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no rush, and further input is welcome before making changes which will effect so many articles. GiantSnowman 10:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding ground coordinates is useful, and from the reader's viewpoint, particularly useful for clubs whose ground doesn't have its own article. Simplifying code is good. Making it possible to include multiple grounds without having to hack it is good, though I imagine there are very few cases needing it. No articles have to be altered as an immediate consequence of this proposed edit. Not a controversial change. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the coding and the documentation. Number  5  7  18:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the capacity supposed to have that little dash before it? Looks strange. BigDom (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; it indents the data (the coordinates likewise) under the "ground" label, because that's the capacity for the ground, not the club. Other infoboxes have similar arrangements. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Just looked odd when I saw it, as if it wasn't meant to be there. BigDom (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * would be better as a bullet, which would match other templates, like infobox settlement. Frietjes (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know how to get it to wrap co-ordinates onto a single line as standard (rather than add nowrap every time)? Number  5  7  18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added this to the sandbox, along with improved label indentation (using hidden text to indicate that the capacity and coordinates are for the ground) and some cleanup (see the testcases). I also added the optional parameter   to use the American term 'stadium' instead of 'ground', which is more intuitive than having to say 'American=yes'.  the old way will still work, but his provides a more intuitive alternative. please update to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_football_club/sandbox&oldid=572227301 this version of the sandbox]. Frietjes (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated as requested. Thanks for that coding, Number   5  7  21:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest dont think it should have an indent or a hyphen it looks very odd. If we need anything could it not just be indented. Blethering  Scot  18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2013
I would suggest different links for the kit descriptors:

"Home colours" should link to Kit (association football).

"Away colours" should link to Away colours.

"Third colours" should link to Third jersey.

- Demokra (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Those seem like very random links. Why do away colours and third jersey use different terminology? Surely they should follow some sort of pattern? Also, I don't think we need to link. – PeeJay 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we add one other parameter?
I would like to change  to   with options of none, USA and "Canada". The reason is that the parameter current affect a change of "Stadium" rather than "Ground" and "Color" rather than "Colour", for kits. The problem is that in Canada we use "Stadium and "Colour" and this is causing an edit war. If no objections, I'll try to make the change before the end of the year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit I knew my edits would be reverted, over this. But my plan worked, which was to create a diaologue on this. Canadian soccer teams need to have Canadian spelling in their articles according to WP:STYLE. To me, it's more important to have the correct spelling of "colour" than to have stadium rather than ground. But anyways, I think it would be wise to just add a new parameter to the template. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this. It is creating a conflict between two different WikiProjects' manuals of style (WikiProject Canada and WikiProject Football). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The infobox can already do that. Just use the "stadium" rather than "ground" parameter without "American=yes".  See here.  TDL (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have read this first. I will self-revert. No need to adjust the template then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this particular instance sorted itself out, but perhaps localisation of the template would be a good thing in the long run anyway. The ability to display titles with regional spelling variations is definitely a good thing. – PeeJay 19:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"stadium vs. ground seems to be a good test for "American spelling"" - not it isn't. As per the discussion above, Canadian english uses "stadium" and "colour". Your edit has broken the infobox of Canadian teams (ie Toronto FC). TDL (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * will revert. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Probably the best solution is what Walter suggested above: create a "locale" parameter that accepts more than a binary yes/no value so we can take into account all the varieties of english.  TDL (talk)

FC Barcelona kit
Why is Barça kit being displayed? The example of kit should be neutral! 85.240.156.196 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make? It's only an example; Wikipedia as a whole does not support any particular team. – PeeJay 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is a player from a second division Canadian team being displayed? Because it's an example. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Colours
The word "colours" in "Home colours", "Away colours" and "Third colours" links to Kit (association football). This should only link on the first occurrence per the guideline at WP:OVERLINK: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Please remove the link in "Away colours" and "Third colours". —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, "Away colours" could link to Away colours and "Third colours" to Third jersey. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 16:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * done, with the added feature that it won't link if non-default labels are used for the second and third kits. Frietjes (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Sorry to be a pain, but could the links be extended to the whole phrases "Away colours" and "Third colours" (and maybe "Home colours" as well) rather than just "colours" so it's obvious that they link to different places without having to hover or click?  Thanks!  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had almost implemented exactly that, but kept things more-or-less status quo. however, I see no reason to not extend the links. Frietjes (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Thank you!  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please Change
There is an unnecessary space infront of Capacity – B2Project (Talk) 23:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * the indentation as the result this thread. I, personally, would have no problem with it being removed. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please, and it's in front of "Stadium" on "American" articles. See Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Mine could just be a kerning issue though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The indentation should be a bullet (as with Infobox settlement) or unbolded and indented with a dash (as with Infobox country) in order to clearly indicate that "Capacity" and "Coordinates" are related to the "Ground" rather than the club. The current single white space is insufficient to make this clear and seems to be causing confusion that this may be an error.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pointless spaces in front of Capacity and Stadium still not deleted... J man708 (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They're not pointless, but ineffective. The spaces are before "Capacity" and "Coordinates" (not "Stadium") and are intended to indent these elements as subordinate to "Ground" as those parameters apply to the ground/stadium, not the club per se.  The formatting needs to be corrected to show this more clearly, as I wrote immediately above.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 23:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Melbourne City Football Club or Melbourne City FC
Please refer to this discussion about whether the  parameter for a club should be Melbourne City Football Club or Melbourne City FC where this is confusion about how this parameter should be used (e.g., whether to use a full legal name and, if so, what this means, e.g., a business name, company/association name, trade mark, etc.). Please feel free to join the discussion there. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In similar discussions for article names it has been common name, but I'll leave that to others to comment on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking,  is "[t]he commonly-used name of the club" whereas   is "[t]he club's complete name."  What does "complete name" mean?  If "Football Club" is used sometimes but "FC" is more commonly used, which is the "complete name"?  Does there need to be a source to verify that "Football Club" (not just "FC") is part of the name?  What sort of source is needed?  Does it need to be a formal or legal registration (and if so, is any particular type required) or will a reference in the club's website or logo do?  This may seem trivial (and perhaps it is) but this is what's been debated because of the vague description on this template's documentation.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * To take the hypothetical example from the documentation, the  is Infobox Rovers and the   is Infobox Rovers Football Club.  If all the sources refer to "Infobox Rovers FC" but everyone knows (or assumes) what "FC" stands for, is it still right to give the full name as "Infobox Rovers Football Club" in the full name?  What if some sources refer to "Infobox Rovers FC" and others to "Infobox Rovers Football Club"?   —sroc &#x1F4AC; 06:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Many people know or assume FC stands for Football Club easily, But non-native English speakers or native English speakers who don't have interest in football or sports may not know what "FC" stands for. Especially, In case of Italian Clubs, Spanish Clubs, South Amercian Clubs, Some clubs have very long name and unfamlliar abbreviation. Even football fans can't know and assume what AC, AS, CF, CD, SC, FK stands for. Everyone is not football nerd. The infobox of football club in wikipedia must be angled towards football beginners and football illiterates. I think this is why full name parameter exist in Wikepedia. Also, I'm definitely sure that at least full name is not a business name or registerted name . In Austraila, club name and business name is similar. But Including South Korea, In Many country, club name and business name is very different.
 * For example, club name FC Seoul - business name GS Sports, Also GS Sports is the business name of volleyball club - GS Caltex Seoul KIXXFootwiks (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the editors above have been honest enough to mention the huge complications behind this naming issue in Australia. After massive, disruptive and agonising discussions (see here for but a small part of it), during which several editors received long term blocks because the heat of the discussion got too much for them. In Wikipedia, it's Soccer in Australia. Part of the reason ALL the A-League clubs initially chose FC as part of their formal names, rather than "football club", is that "football club" is ambiguous, particularly on the Australian football side of the Barassi Line. (Actually, it's it's not really ambiguous. It means a club playing Australian football). In several cases there were also successful legal challenges to such names from the Australian Football League. There are constant efforts by unhappy fans of the round ball game to replace the word "soccer" with "football" wherever and whenever they can. It's still a source of ongoing disruption. I could go on, but I really just want those not familiar with the Australian situation to understand that this question is not as totally innocent and free-standing as it seems. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not fair to say that "football club" "means a club playing Australian [rules] football", as it is used in both Australian rules and soccer, whether you like it or not. What Wikipedia chooses to call the sport does not define the names of individual clubs.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fullname parameter description
In light of the above, could we clarify the wording in the documentation for the  parameter to say, for example: "'The club's complete name. Terms such as Football Club should be spelled out in full if used by the club, even if abbreviated forms such as FC are also commonly used.'"  This may help to avoid arguments suggesting to use "FC" when this is used more often even though "Football Club" is also sometimes used by the club in its own name. I'm not sure it's helpful to refer to "official" or "registered" names as this leads to arguments over what this means (e.g., registered business name, registered trade mark, etc.). —sroc &#x1F4AC; 13:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But right now we're arguing over what "fullname" means. Unfortunately the change you supported at Melbourne City Football Club has now led another editor obsessed with the idea that the round ball game must be called "football" in Australia to uses an obscure and rare use of the words "football club" on the Central Coast Mariners FC website to claim that the full name of that club also includes the words "football club". This is despite the fact that it's very obvious that the club otherwise exclusively uses a shorter form of the name. I would really prefer that confrontations on that front be avoided.


 * If we don't have a precise definition of "fullname", what IS it for? I see no point in it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get a more precise definition of .  There's no call or need to eradicate it; it serves a different purpose from , which omits "FC"/"Football Club" and other variants entirely.  Just because something is a topic of debate certainly doesn't mean we delete it entirely to avoid the dispute – that would just lead to more disputes!  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, to avoid disputes, we at lest need a clear definition of what "fullname" means. In the case of Australian clubs at least, it is not obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hilo, Please don't paint me (I'm assuming that is who you are referring to) as "another editor obsessed with the idea that the round ball game must be called "football" in Australia". I made one edit in line with standard practice on Wikipedia... (and no need to make it personal). Logic and looking at what occurs elsewhere on Wikipedia is more than sufficient to show that "Fullname" should not include abbreviations (being a full name); and that in practice "FC" is expanded to "Football Club" routinely on clubs with FC in their name (regardless of what is "commonly used" (the parameter name of "fullname" rather than "commonname" makes that evident). Macosal (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. For A-League clubs, "FC" is NOT expanded to "Football Club" routinely on clubs with FC in their name. You found a very obscure example of it happening on that Mariners' website. It must have taken some digging. It reeks of obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd repeat: please do not resort to personal insults (needless and unhelpful). Took no digging just good use of google (not that it matters). Why should an A-League club with Football Club in its full name be treated differently to all other clubs on Wikipedia? Macosal (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem here is the definition of "fullname". Your find is not convincing evidence to me. HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that there is a problem with the vague definition of  in the documentation. I have made a proposal. For all the bluster (and fixation on the specific case of Central Coast Mariners), neither of you has commented on the proposal or suggested an alternative. Can we stick to the point, please? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I did comment. Drop the parameter entirely. What would we lose? Actually, if you can answer that question, we might be on our way to a definition. But I can't see one at present HiLo48 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you mean to delete the parameter from the infobox, that would be quite ridiculous. Have you considered the rest of the world that isn't Australia?  There are countless clubs that take forms such as Associazione Calcio Milan S.p.A., Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, Manchester United Football Club, Philips Sport Vereniging NV, Amsterdamsche Football Club Ajax, Ballspielverein Borussia 09 e.V. Dortmund and Futebol Clube do Porto whose full names would vanish from the infobox.  What is your justification to remove this information and deprive readers of this useful data in the expected place?  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 19:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mean delete the parameter from the Infobox, because we don't have an agreed definition for it, leading to original research being the most likely method used to fill it. That's unacceptable to start with. In the case of the A-League clubs this has led, now in three cases that I'm aware of, to editors finally, in bad faith, achieving their goal of having their game called "football" on Wikipedia. It's a manipulative use of the parameter, with the intent of weakening the effect of a firm consensus achieved with massive pain. That an ill-defined parameter can be so badly misused says, delete it! Please don't make me argue over the FC "abbreviation" issue. We've been through all that many times elsewhere. This is not a one-off, isolated, stand-alone problem in the Australian context. If you can come up with a definition that prevents the bad faith consensus avoidance happening, I might change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree that deleting the parameter is disproportionate, unnecessary and undesirable. If anything, a better move would be to make a clear(er) definition of the parameter (although it is somewhat self-explanatory). No original research has occurred at any point, nor have I acted in bad faith (no need to make such accusations). You seem driven to remove all/any mention of the word "football" on pages re football/soccer in Australia rather than assessing each case on its merits. Your suggestion "If you can come up with a definition that prevents the bad faith consensus avoidance happening, I might change my view." is not appropriate - a good definition would be an appropriate one, not one specifically geared to achieve your desired result. Macosal (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Finding two obscure mentions via Google that just happened to suit your preference, sneakily getting around an agonisingly achieved consensus, despite masses of evidence elsewhere that the club really didn't use "football club" in its name anywhere else, was definitely either original research or POV pushing, or both. Nobody has come up with a solution that prevents the parameter from being misused that way. Just unsupported claims that we must keep the parameter no matter what, despite all the obvious problems, is what worries me here. So why keep it? Please tell us, and while you're at it, in your view, what IS the meaning of "fullname"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The solution to a poor definition is to revise the definition, not delete the parameter. You need to justify deleting the parameter, one that is used worldwide, but your issue is grounded in a dispute over a three clubs in one country.  Your issue on that appears to be misguided as conflating the use of the word "football" in the name of a club with its use as the name of the sport.  These are not the same issue, and Wikipedia's policy to call the sport "soccer" in Australia does not justify whitewashing the word from club's names.  If clubs name themselves "Football Club", it's not our place to conceal that fact with "FC" to meet the community's prejudices.  Wikipedia isn't Big Brother and we don't throw words we don't like in the memory hole.  As I've, it is entirely acceptable and consistent to give the full name of a club as "Infobox Rovers Football Club" and call the sport "soccer", but you can't deny the name of the club.
 * If you disagree with my proposed wording for the parameter description, feel free to suggest your own. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 02:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There have now been four articles changed in Australia. Do you care about that? There is no evidence that all those clubs have suddenly changed. It's manipulative editing, that you are helping to occur. Sadly you have ignored much of what I have already said about FC being an abbreviation. Until Melbourne City's new logo turned up, all the Australian clubs used FC, not "football club". Why no exceptions? Do you have an answer? Why do Australian football clubs always spell out "Football Club" in their names. You need to find out. I don't have time here to repeat all of the discussion that has gone before. If you showed good faith you would trust me on this. You seem to want to ignore the complexities of the Australian situation. I submit that the FC, rather than being a direct abbreviation, is an affection to make the clubs sound like their hero clubs in Europe, just like putting "United" in the name of a club that has never been anything but a single entity. Your silly improvement says "The club's complete name". Who defines what that is? The fans who want to sneakily win a war in Australian articles? Your definition is no better than what is there now, and it doesn't work. What harm would occur if the parameter was deleted? HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "If you showed good faith you would trust me on this." Good faith ≠ blind trust.
 * When you say "There have now been four articles changed in Australia", do you mean the  in the infobox or replacing "soccer" with "football" in the article text?  If it's the former and you think that this is misguided because of the vague meaning of "full name", then let's clarify the documentation on what this means.  If it's the latter, then those edits are misguided and you should refer to the discussion supporting the use of "soccer" in Australia by way of consensus.  Stop trying to conflate these separate issues!
 * Using a club's actual full name does not "ignore the complexities of the Australian situation." We don't censor what clubs actually call themselves.
 * Your claim that Australian clubs' use of "FC" in their names "is an affection to make the clubs sound like their hero clubs in Europe" is original research and carries no weight here. In any case, it doesn't change the facts of what their names actually are so is irrelevant to this issue.
 * "Who defines what [a club's complete name] is?" That's what I'm trying to clarify, but you're not offering any suggestions other than to dismiss my proposal.
 * "What harm would occur if the parameter was deleted?" I have already elucidated this above, and the onus would be on you to gather support for such a sweeping change that would affect 18,000+ articles for clubs around the world (based on your dispute of the handling of four articles).
 * If you are not interested in engaging in the issues and only intend to re-iterate your views skewed against any reference to "football" even in clubs' own names, then we have reached an impasse and engaging you in further discussion would simply be a waste of time. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked the documentation for infobox rugby league club and infobox rugby team. They each have a  parameter, but neither offers any description. Presumably no one in those codes has any difficulty working out what a club's "full name" is. Note, however, that the rugby team template gives an example with "Aughrim RFC" as the  and "Aughrim Rugby Football Club" as the. Are there other similar templates that might provide any guidance on how this might be handled? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ditto infobox swim team and infobox netball team which both have a "full name" parameter without elaboration (while many other team infoboxes don't have such a parameter). No one else seems to have any problem telling what a team's "full name" is. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have now used the words "Using a club's actual full name..." That's no better either. What's an "actual full name"? "Full name" is obviously undefined and undefinable. Your multiple examples actually highlight the fact that nobody has come up with an explicit definition. You also say, about the rugby codes, where no description is provided, "Presumably no one in those codes has any difficulty working out what a club's full name is." Doesn't "working out" mean original research? It's a bad, undefined and undefinable parameter. That you claim it's useful puts the onus on you to come up with a 100% unarguable, universally applicable definition. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The onus isn't on me to do anything. I'm fine with the status quo; you want to argue over what "full name" means.  You say: "nobody has come up with an explicit definition".  Nobody else has tried.  You haven't.  Nobody else has ever felt the need.  It seems everyone else is happy using this template in over 18,000 articles and various other similar templates in countless other articles without any guidance on what "full name" means – presumably using common sense – but you just don't like the word "football" so you'll argue with anyone putting in the name of a club that has it.  Are you the only one with a problem with it?  No one else seems to be arguing for a change here.  Nonetheless, I've tried to help you by clarifying the definition in order to sort out the disputes you get involved in, but you don't want to hear my views and instead make unsupported, wild theories of your own.  Drop the stick.  I'm done.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 11:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. Find it hard to conceive of a definition where abbreviations are not expanded as part of a "full name" (the phrase has a common English meaning which would seem informative here). It's not original research to make a change which can be directly backed by a reliable source. It 'is original research (or guesswork) to speculate that the FC doesn't stand for anything and was added to "imitate European clubs". The parameter has had no (evident) issue other than this particular discussion (suggesting it works pretty well - only one editor has ever questioned it apparently). And, even in this case, your issue seems to be a way to restrict use of the word "football" rather than the parameter itself. Macosal (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not alone in this. See the discussions where this began. Right now I am the only one trying to bring certainty to an uncertain issue in this esoteric area of Wikipedia. And my life has again reached a busy stage, so you will win this by default, not because you are right. Does it really make you feel good that such an ill-defined parameter can exist? HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Right now I am the only one trying to bring certainty to an uncertain issue..." How deluded and insulting.  Who started this conversation here and made a proposal to clarify the documentation?  Me.  Stop trying to act like you're the saviour of this project.  If you had actually participated sensibly in this discussion by offering your own suggested wording instead of pushing your ridiculous idea of abandoning the parameter (which works fine on 18,000+ other articles), we might have reached a consensus we could both agree on.  Instead, you've wasted both our time.  —sroc &#x1F4AC; 21:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's insult time, your proposed solutions have been ludicrous. No use at all. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Relegation / promotion - which league, season and position should be shown?
Upon a team being promoted, at what point does the league, season and position need to be changed? Is it only once the new season has begun? Please see Maitland FC for my example. Thanks. Datasmack (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC)
 * I would update when season is over. SLBedit (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So if a team gains promotion in say, the 2014 season, then once that season has finished, the league should be updated to show the higher league, season 2015 and with a position of -? How do you then show that this club has won the lower league and have been promoted? Datasmack (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "season — The last completed competitive league season. i.e Not the current season." You add "League, 1st (promoted)". SLBedit (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have improved the article a little bit. SLBedit (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

missing parameter
short name isn't displayed nor explained. Shouldn't template source use ? SLBedit (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we even need short name parameter? As far as I'm aware, the short name would be the one used as the heading of the infobox. Number   5  7  19:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At least two articles are using short name. One is using it as an abbreviation of club's full name, another is using it to display a shorter name of the one used in infobox header. SLBedit (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * TBH, I'd be in favour of removing it as redundant. What do other people think? Number   5  7  21:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too since it's unknown and rarely used. SLBedit (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * now tracking with Category:football team templates which use short name parameter, which will take at least 24 hours to fill up. Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Many articles use it. The parameter still isn't displayed in Template:Infobox football club. SLBedit (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles are using short name for club acronym. Can't we just remove it or perhaps rename it to clubacronym? SLBedit (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to delete it if there are no objections. Only 288 articles of the 20,000+ that use the template actually have this parameter. Number   5  7  17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is interested in this issue. SLBedit (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

League position
"position — The league and position to which season refers."

If club wasn't promoted or relegated, why repeat the league's name in the box? SLBedit (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I usually put "X Superleague" in the league line, and then in the following line the season with a proper wikilink to that season, and just its place, exemple 5th. FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * However, it is quite often the case where the league name is repeated, as in FK Čukarički exemple. This is your question, right? FkpCascais (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my opinion is that league name should not be repeated. SLBedit (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I think it should. The infobox is for an at-a-glance overview of the club. When the reader wants to know what the club did last season, they should be able to find out at a glance, without having to look at the current season row as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The position is near to the league's name. SLBedit (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the point. It's easier for a reader to read the information all together on a single line than it is for them to read it in two parts on two lines, whether that second line is nearby or not. Why make it harder for them? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find it harder to read but you made a good point. SLBedit (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It should not be mentioned as it is a row above. Kante4 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a point in adding it, when the league didn't change. But it doesn't really matter. Wouldn't revert either way. -Koppapa (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Add history label
must be added the label history such as the template:infobox sport club. Thanks (| label13   = Team history
 * data13    = ) --Odythal (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. – PeeJay 18:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is useful for the clubs that have changed name several times in their history. For example see Toronto Phantoms or West Texas Roughnecks and many others that use the template:Infobox sports team --Odythal (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, well if you'd said that to begin with instead of just saying IT MUST BE ADDED, I might not have said no so quickly. Seems logical to me. – PeeJay 19:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Could someone add it--Odythal (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We should probably wait until some more people have had a chance to contribute to this conversation. Someone might be able to see a negative we've missed. – PeeJay 16:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is necessary and am concerned it might just add clutter to the infobox. Perhaps it would be better to use an existing parameter for this, perhaps club full name. See an example to the right. The name parameter could also be altered to change from "Full name" to just "Name" if there was a "multiple_names=yes" argument. Number   5  7  18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The label: full name is in the top of the infobox and doesn't look nice. In the exising templates are correctly positioned. Other examples for the use of template:Infobox Basketball club: Ikaros Kallitheas B.C., AEL BC --Odythal (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think the top of the infobox is probably the best place for multiple names to be outlined. Number   5  7  15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The label history is also useful to mention former clubs that have merged with the current club. See also PAE Kerkyra. The label full name is not the most suitable --Odythal (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Current season" parameter
Based on this discussion about  parameter; should we link to a season which has not started? SLBedit (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a convenient switch date would be the point at which the league's fixtures are released, or the point at which the club has confirmed fixtures (e.g. friendlies) lined up. Number   5  7  15:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 March 2016
for next club
 * label17    = Succeeded by
 * data17     =
 * dissolved          = 15 September 1999
 * succeeded_by       = FC Barcelona

ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: As an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter, I request that you please provide a complete and specific description of what it is you wish to accomplish with this change? An example of where it might be used would help. fredgandt 01:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: As Fred Gandt says, we will need more information to carry out this request. At the moment, it's not very clear what you want. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of championships won, etc
Shouldn't there exist a parameter (sequence of parameters) for the number of championships (championships, cups, etc) won? SoSivr (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. This would only lead to the pathetic edit wars we've seen articles like Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Completely unnecessary. Number   5  7  10:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we can assume good faith and add whatever enriches the articles, and deal with content disputes on case by case bases. 11:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with good faith, it's about experience of similar scenarios. The number of championships is already covered in the article, and there is no need to go into that level of detail in the infobox. Number   5  7  12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is probably the most important statistic, though (especially for the top teams) ! SoSivr (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Number 57. Besides, which competitions would you include? Just the domestic league? League and cup? Then you've got differences between nations whereby some have more competitions to play for than others. And what about the inevitable grandstanding of the so-called smaller clubs, which would list all the minor competitions they've won just to get on an even keel with the "bigger" teams? – PeeJay 19:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)