Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 2

Honours-section / Medal templates
What is the best way of listing honours? The most normal thing to do, as far as I can see, is the way it's done in Wayne Rooney with a "honours" section, other pages like this "MoS"-page got the honours listed in the infobox using the |medaltemplate= parameter, while some pages like Lionel Messi has the honours listed both ways. Should we adjust this MoS-page, or is this the right way to do it? --Mentoz86 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Bit late, but I would say like Messi now, i.e. medaltemplates as well, but only for national teams. It should only be for competitions where a gold, silver and bronze medal is awarded, really. But other national team competitions is fine as well maybe? – Terje Christiansen (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Owen Hargreaves
I'm attempting to add annotated historical content to the Owen Hargreaves article about the controversy caused in Canada by his decision to play for the English national team. My edits are continuously deleted by a User PeeJay2K3 without putting up any proof that the controversy is untrue. How do I escalate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilOwens (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may open a discussion at WT:FOOTY. But please sign your edits. --Jaellee (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Appearances and goals
If goals and appearances are unknown for a player due to lack of sources, what is the appropriate way of displaying the lack of information in the infobox? --MicroX (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In such cases I leave the goals and apps empty. --Jaellee (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation for stats table
Is it necessary to provide a reference to every single season in the stats table like the Carl Jenkinson article does? Or should we simply replace it by one single reference that includes all of the stats? I added this ESPN page http://espnfc.com/player/_/id/150844/carl-jenkinson?cc=5901#ui-tabs-1 and removed the 4 soccerbase references while keeping the source for the one FA Trophy game he played. However, my edits were reverted by the administrator. So, should we have a source for every season? Thanks. --Miunouta (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Every season needs its own cite, good articles include divisions and season references in the career stats table, such as Luke Foster and Lee Hughes, so this is what we should be adhering to. JMHamo (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But over 90% of the articles listed as 'good articles' do not include divisions and season references in the career stats table, such as Xabi Alonso, Ben Amos, Micky Adams, Mario Balotelli, Joey Barton, Dennis Bergkamp... Instead, they mostly just have 1-3 references at the top and I personally think that looks much cleaner. So what you are saying does not seem to be coherent. Maybe most of the articles in the 'good articles' list should be removed from the list based on what you said.--Miunouta (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Good articles" have to pass a specific set of WP-wide criteria. That doesn't necessarily make them examples of best practice WP:FOOTY-wise. And improving Wikipedia is a gradual process: nothing happens overnight. As to row-by-row referencing, people seem to be going over to doing that. It's easier for the curious reader to tell which reference applies to which set of stats: we shouldn't expect them to search through a row of refs at the top of the article if they want to verify a particular stat. And from a wishful-thinking point of view, if the anon editors who do most of the updating on stats tables get used to the idea of inline sources, they may be more likely to update with reference to that source, rather than just ignoring some number in square brackets miles above the row they're updating. If there's a particular reliable source that does verify every (or nearly every) entry in the stats table, it does no harm to repeat the link on each row. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note for European competitions
Is it necessary to add a note that states what European competition a player played in like the Carl Jenkinson article does? I removed the note because no other articles do that but it was put back by the administrator. So do we need to do the same for every other applicable article? Thanks.--Miunouta (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes is the short answer. If a player plays in many European competitions over his career, it's important to be able to see quickly what they were involved in that season. JMHamo (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But it seems like few of the 'good articles' have that kind of information in them. Is it that they should not be considered as 'good articles' or it is just unnecessary to include that information?--Miunouta (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See above re good articles and gradual improvement. It's "unnecessary" to include a stats table at all. If we're including one, it makes sense to include information helpful to the reader. The informative notes below the tables are a fairly recent introduction, and are being gradually adopted. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Assists/Clean sheets
It appears that assists/clean sheets are not included in the template table. Does it mean that we need to help remove the assists and clean sheets columns in all of the football player articles?--Miunouta (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Assists and Clean Sheets should be removed per WP:FOOTY JMHamo (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why my edits to Cesc Fabregas were undone? I removed the assists cells based on what you said.--Miunouta (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I included the old version and the new version below.

Old Version

Fabregas new stats table
--Miunouta (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Stats table template needs to be updated
1. Is a 'Total' row needed if the player has only played for the club for one season (e.g. one-year loan spell)? What if it is the current season?

2. Do we need to add multiple 'Total' rows if a player has 2 or more spells at one club? For example, if the player has 2 spells at a club, should the second 'Total' be the sum of the first 'Total' and the second one? What if they have 3 spells at the same club?

3. Shouldn't the league cells/rows be merged if it's the same league?

4. Shouldn't the template include a Continental(e.g. Europe) column?

5. How are we supposed to indicate what cups the player has played for?

6. The situation where cup or other is not applicable is not demonstrated in the template.

7. What should the seasons link to? For example, should we link 2000–01 to 2000–01 Premier League or 2000–01 Template United F.C. season? What if none of the two exist?

8. Should season cells be merged if the player played at 2 or more clubs in one season? If so, what if they played in different leagues?

--Miunouta (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. Not in my opinion.
 * 2. If they're physically adjacent in the table, e.g. a loan immediately above a permanent spell, I'd have just one total row for the lot. If they're physically separate, I'd have separate, independent totals rows, i.e. the second/third totals would not include figures from previous spells.
 * 3. No. It's easier for a sighted reader to read along a line; if there are multiple rowspanned columns, particularly if the player has had a long career with several years at each of several clubs and changes of division don't coincide with changes of club, the eyeline goes up and down like a yo-yo. Also, I was told once by a reviewer with expertise in accessibility issues that many screen readers can't cope with rowspans after the first column, so mislead their users; don't know if that's still the case, but assuming it is, we shouldn't be recommending a structure that some users can't access.
 * 4. Whatever's appropriate. Most players don't play in continental competition.
 * 5. That layout, like the rest of the page, only gives a rough idea. Most editors would separate "Cup" into FA Cup and League Cup for players playing solely in England, or National Cup and {generic) League Cup for players playing in several countries. Whatever's appropriate. As with the European or Other columns, we can always add footnotes if necessary.
 * 6. See 5. Omit whatever's inappropriate.
 * 7. Assuming the club season article would be independently notable, i.e. club playing in a top or fully professional league, then definitely club season. It's considerably more likely to be relevant to the player, and by extension to the reader looking at the table and wanting further information, than the league season. If a notable club season doesn't exist, still link to it. redlinks are good; they encourage people to write the missing article. Link to league season only if the club season isn't notable.
 * 8. No. See 3 and 7.
 * Another thing some editors do is to format a cell pair as  (instead of zeroes) when the club didn't play in the relevant competition while the player was registered with them: e.g., as at Chris Burke (footballer). Thank you very much for setting out such a constructive set of questions. Not sure whether I should format my replies like this, or intersperse them with the questions. If people think interspersed would be better, please feel free to reformat, and copy my sig up to each reply, or ask me to do it, whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well answered Struway2. I like your approach. Can I just give a visual example of a career stats table, which I think is perfect and should be the template for ALL player articles that include a stats table.. Matt Green has a long career, played in many different leagues and cups and the way his table is formatted allows me to see what I need quickly. This is the standard we should be reaching to achieve in my opinion. JMHamo (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saw Chris Burke... a perfect example for European competition stats. JMHamo (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks so much for answering! I am sorry but I do have a couple more questions regarding the stats table. Please refer to tables I posted in the Assists/Clean sheets section.


 * 9. Where should we include competitions like the FA Community Shield (1 round), the Spanish Super Cup (2 rounds), FIFA Club World Cup, UEFA Super Cup, and DFB-Ligapokal (abandoned)? 'Cup' or 'Other'?


 * 10. It seems that people do not agree on whether or not assists/clean sheets should be removed. Assists are not included in Chris Burke (footballer), but when I removed the assists columns in Cesc Fabregas, it was considered as nonconstructive and my edits were undone. So, what should we do?


 * Thanks!--Miunouta (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents:
 * 3. & 8. I prefer merged cells. It's then easier to see (especially if the player has a long spell in one league) that it was each season the same league.
 * 4. Only necessary if the player (or at least the club) took part in a continental competition.
 * 9. Other.
 * 10. Remove both.
 * For the others I agree with the answers above. --Jaellee (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I strongly agree with you on merged cells. Let's take Ryan Giggs as an example, it looks much cleaner and much easier for readers to see that he's only been playing in the Premier League since his third season at Man Utd because we used merged cells.
 * Could you please help improve the template I provided for Cesc Fabregas and migrate it to the actual article? Thanks.--Miunouta (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Division in career stats
In the career stats table in the Division cell we write Premier League, Liga BBVA and all.But how it is possible?Division should be like English first division,French second division etc.RRD13 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Division column: to repeat name or not
From the discussion above, and the recent change reverted by myself as without consensus, it's clear that many people prefer not to repeat the division name on every row. However, what we can't do here is override Wikipedia's Manual of Style by recommending a style that fails WP:ACCESS because screen readers don't read rows with rowspanned cells properly, if that's still the case. It might well not be. Perhaps someone who supports this change could get confirmation from the accessibility project as to whether it's OK or not, then if it is, the change could be proposed and discussed here. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Group stats by club or list them chronologically
Hi, can anyone point me to the WT:FOOTY consensus that says that players' stats tables should be grouped by club instead of listing them chronologically? I seem to have completely missed this discussion. --Jaellee (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here - It makes no sense for it not to be chronological. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Voila - and as an FYI, this fresh discussion has spun out of Bladeboy taking personal offence when I dared convert this mess of a table more into line with our MOS. GiantSnowman 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jaellee (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have 'taken personal offence' or questioned that you 'dared' to change something, merely questioned the logic of your position and the MOS, and stated my belief that it is confusing and a poor reader experience, consensus or no. Having read the previous discussion now I think the matter of chronology was glossed over anyway - the only mention of it was you saying it should be one way and Struway disagreeing. On that basis I think it's worth discussing more fully. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'example' table - which has now been adopted - clearly has it grouped by team and not by season. GiantSnowman 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why has this example table been "adopted"? Should I have revert the edit immediately, instead of asking for the reasons, especially since the edit was made by a long-time contributor to WP:FOOTY? To say it clearly, I don't agree to your edit and prefer the chronological order. The whole way of pushing this issue without clear consensus annoys me. --Jaellee (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...um, maybe because that is what was agreed at the discussion I have linked above? Just because you disagree with the consensus does not make the consensus incorrect. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion focussed on the columns, inclusion criteria with only scant attention paid to the issue of chronology as I'd suspect it was largely overlooked by editors as it wasn't overtly signposted that that was the intention. On that basis I think a clarification of consensus would be helpful on this specific issue. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means feel free to start a fresh discussion - but until consensus changes (if/when), please do not edit against it just because you disagree. GiantSnowman 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Let's see what happens. --Jaellee (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Extra stats for players other than listing down their number of goals
It's simple:

- Goal keepers and defenders should have the number of clean sheets they've made listed beside the number of goals they've scored

- Midfielders should have the number of assists they've made also listed beside the number of goals

I think that could better represent their achieved stats besides the number of appearances they've made and their goals (even if they're not a striker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.33 (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been already been discussed a lot of times with no changes in the consensus. I think the latest discussions can be found here and here. --Jaellee (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Soccerbase link
At the moment the template contains a link to Soccerbase. This is inappropriate because the website is a betting agency and the link amounts to free advertising. It would be better to replace this with a link to Premier League, which is the official body. Michael Glass (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No - Soccerbase is considered a reliable source, and the Premier League website only covers Premier League games (unsurprisingly...). A better site would be Soccerway. GiantSnowman 12:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that Soccerway would be better than Soccerbase. I make no comment on the reliability of Scccerbase except to state that it is a betting site, and that is why it is questionable. I do not believe that it is proper to put such a link in the template, especially when there are other organisations that could be used in its place, including BBC Sport, Premier League and perhaps Soccerway. (Soccerway does carry betting advertisements, but it is not a betting site as Soccerbase appears to be Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We won't fall for that one Michael. We know the reason you hate Soccerbase is that it sticks to the British practice of using feet & inches and stones & pounds, as well as metric conversions, for player statistics; whilst your favoured premier league site atypically uses metric units only. Wikipedia should not be used for pushing your views on how the UK should be forced into using the metric system alone. Baaarny (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of Baaarny. This is the first of three edits made under that name as I write. The other two were to create a user page and user talk. I think that this is a sockpuppet account. Michael Glass (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't think the template should include a link to any particular stats site at all. It's a leftover from the time when an external link to an appropriate stats site was considered sufficient for sourcing the player's infobox stats. Although many editors still think it's OK to do it that way, rather than either having a row-by-row-sourced career stats table or having one or more general references, in the References section, explicitly noted as source(s) for infobox statistics, it's not something we should be encouraging. Better to include generic ideas of what might be relevant: "link to player's personal website", "link to profile on current club's website", "link to full details of international career", whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I support Struway2's proposal. We don't need a link to Soccerbase or any of the other possible links embedded in the template as if it's the prime source of all wisdom. We have Premier League, BBC Sports, Transfermarkt, Soccerway, Soccerbase and no doubt others that I am not aware of. All of them have their strengths and their weaknesses and arbitrarily singling out just one of them to put in the template doesn't seem to me to be warranted. Michael Glass (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would support removing one specific link. As a side note Transfermarkt is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 15:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed that link. Michael Glass (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Re your edit summary: Just to clarify that although the passing observer might infer a causal relationship from the wording "Removed the link to the betting site following Struway2's suggestion", I'm sure you didn't mean to imply one. Struway2 never suggested removing a link to a betting site: you did. I suggested replacing all specific links with suggestions as to what sort of link might be appropriate, and will now proceed to do so. Struway2 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies if my edit summary was misleading. I am glad that you have made your changes so promptly. Michael Glass (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating international events statistic section
While in most of articles about football players performing at international level, we can find "international statistics" section with apps and goals scored in particular years, I've been always missing a section where I could read how a player performed during international events. For that purpose I put some work to edit some articles I follow and created extra sections called "international events". It's based on a template used by NHL ice hockey players. I made that edit for 6 articles, here is the example of such a list for created for Neymar:

International events
Only major international events including the Olympic Games with U23 team

All the edits has been however reverted by who believes that there is no need for such lists and that it's a POV in a way of describing "major" competitions. My idea is that the list gives a reader nice overview of how a player performed at international events, and that describing "major" events is quite easy in football. At international level we have youth, friendly, qualifying and "major" competitions where we have got FIFA World Cup, continental championships, FIFA Confederations Cup plus the Summer Olympic Games tournament being all official events under FIFA or respective confederations.

Please give me idea if a layout of such lists could exist for football players. Ksihoo 21:54 (CET), 14 October 2015


 * not many editors follow this subsection, I would recommend WT:FOOTY. Qed237&#160;(talk) 15:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW I don't think these kind of stats tables should be added, per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 17:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Please comment there. Qed237&#160;(talk) 19:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Division column: to repeat name or not
From the discussion above, and the recent change reverted by myself as without consensus, it's clear that many people prefer not to repeat the division name on every row. However, what we can't do here is override Wikipedia's Manual of Style by recommending a style that fails WP:ACCESS because screen readers don't read rows with rowspanned cells properly, if that's still the case. It might well not be. Perhaps someone who supports this change could get confirmation from the accessibility project as to whether it's OK or not, then if it is, the change could be proposed and discussed here. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Struway2 Secondary question here. If we should not be using rowspanning to put multiple years in the same division/league, should we be rowpanning the club name? Wouldn't that cause the same problem for the screen readers? Demt1298 (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Group stats by club or list them chronologically
Hi, can anyone point me to the WT:FOOTY consensus that says that players' stats tables should be grouped by club instead of listing them chronologically? I seem to have completely missed this discussion. --Jaellee (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Same here - It makes no sense for it not to be chronological. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Voila - and as an FYI, this fresh discussion has spun out of Bladeboy taking personal offence when I dared convert this mess of a table more into line with our MOS. GiantSnowman 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jaellee (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have 'taken personal offence' or questioned that you 'dared' to change something, merely questioned the logic of your position and the MOS, and stated my belief that it is confusing and a poor reader experience, consensus or no. Having read the previous discussion now I think the matter of chronology was glossed over anyway - the only mention of it was you saying it should be one way and Struway disagreeing. On that basis I think it's worth discussing more fully. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'example' table - which has now been adopted - clearly has it grouped by team and not by season. GiantSnowman 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why has this example table been "adopted"? Should I have revert the edit immediately, instead of asking for the reasons, especially since the edit was made by a long-time contributor to WP:FOOTY? To say it clearly, I don't agree to your edit and prefer the chronological order. The whole way of pushing this issue without clear consensus annoys me. --Jaellee (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...um, maybe because that is what was agreed at the discussion I have linked above? Just because you disagree with the consensus does not make the consensus incorrect. GiantSnowman 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion focussed on the columns, inclusion criteria with only scant attention paid to the issue of chronology as I'd suspect it was largely overlooked by editors as it wasn't overtly signposted that that was the intention. On that basis I think a clarification of consensus would be helpful on this specific issue. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means feel free to start a fresh discussion - but until consensus changes (if/when), please do not edit against it just because you disagree. GiantSnowman 13:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Let's see what happens. --Jaellee (talk) 10:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Extra stats for players other than listing down their number of goals
It's simple:

- Goal keepers and defenders should have the number of clean sheets they've made listed beside the number of goals they've scored

- Midfielders should have the number of assists they've made also listed beside the number of goals

I think that could better represent their achieved stats besides the number of appearances they've made and their goals (even if they're not a striker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.125.33 (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been already been discussed a lot of times with no changes in the consensus. I think the latest discussions can be found here and here. --Jaellee (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)