Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players/Archive 7

Order of club honours
I'm surprised that the MoS encourages us to order continental competitions ahead of domestic competitions in the club honours. I've very rarely ever seen honours sections laid out this way in practice, and I reckon most readers would expect to find the domestic competitions listed first. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would you expect readers to see honours of lower value before those of higher value? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are competitions like the Premier League, La Liga etc of "lower value" to the FIFA Club World Cup? But regardless of supposed value, there must be a reason why 99%+ of player honours sections list domestic competitions above continental competitions. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Come on, Matty, why choose the FIFA Club World Cup as an example instead of the Champions League or the Europa League? By that logic, someone could ask you why the Community Shield is of a higher value than the Champions League.
 * I agree with the current order of honours in the MOS. Most people would rate a Champions League title higher than a league title and a Europa League title higher than a national cup title, etc. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 * 99%+ of player honours sections list domestic competitions above continental competitions – That does not match what I'm seeing. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know what biographies you're seeing this on, because I don't think I'd *ever* seen a continental competition listed before a domestic competition before reordered some today.
 * I'm quite troubled by the assumption that a continental competition is *necessarily* of higher value (by whatever metric we're judging the value of competitions by) to a domestic competition. Would we class the upcoming UEFA Europa Conference League as being of higher value to one of Europe's domestic leagues, purely on the basis that it's competed on a continental basis? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Mattythewhite (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer Matty, who gets to play in the FIFA Club World Cup? The Champions League is the key here, not the one you singled-out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the order should be anything other than continental -> domestic -> minor. Nehme1499 19:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Shall I assume that Mattythewhite (and others) have some internal value for importance each competition?
 * If you take all possible competitions and place them in a table with the first column being the name of the competition, the second being whether it is either continental, domestic or minor (local derby) and the third the overall importance ranking, which would come first, the continental, the domestic or the minor competition? Yes, there will be some continental competitions that are of lower value than some domestic competitions, but if you are invited to a continental competition, it is likely not because the team has won some domestic competition.
 * I'd also be curious to see where it makes sense to have a different order. Whether that is the order that all articles currently have is immaterial. It is a goal.
 * Unless Mattythewhite and others want to make a complete and comprehensive value list and maintain it, continental, domestic and minor makes the most sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no interest or desire in making a "complete and comprehensive value list", I just wanted to ask the question of why our MoS is out of step with the standard applied by the majority of player biographies. To back up what I'm seeing, *not a single member* of the current FC Bayern Munich squad have their honours listed in the format prescribed here. If this standard is indeed desirable, why aren't we doing better, as a project, at applying it? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not want to set-up a false dichotomy and I'm sorry if I did that. The explanation is that the current suggested order, continental, domestic or minor, is effectively a complete list as any competition can be objectively placed within that hierarchy and can be order. You have suggested that it is not the correct order but have not offered a different way of objectively order entries in a list. You have also pointed out that there is a shortcoming: how do we order competitions within these major categories (Should the league title come before the national cup? Should the continental cup come before a FIFA tournament? Is there a way to prioritize minor trophies?) and we definitely need to address that. Clearly, there may be another objective way to order the list. I for one would like to hear of another way, and ordering of the honours within the categories. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot ever recall seeing as single article that doesn't list honours in chronological order. Why would a player winning a league in 1970-71, a League Cup in 1973 and an Intercontinental Cup in 1976 have the latter trophy listed ahead of the others? Let me guess, "just because"?--EchetusXe 13:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen honours listed chronologically occasionally but not very often, although personally I'd be quite happy for them to be listed that way. I see that has been listing some that way recently, it would be good to hear your thoughts on this. While I'm at it, I'll ping in others who've been involved in the other recent discussions re honours:, , , , , , , , , . Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chronological works where a player has won each trophy only once, as opposed to e.g. League in 2011, Cup in 2012, League again in 2013 etc. - so I would prefer organisation by competition type. GiantSnowman 16:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case we'd put the leagues on the same line, e.g. "League: 2011, 2013", unless you're referring to a different league competition? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know - but that would not truly be chronological. GiantSnowman 16:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't often edit player bios but I would expect honours to read international, continental, then domestic, especially for clubs who may have won multiple trophies and where chronological wouldn't make sense. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Same, I think that makes most sense as it's the most notable honours first. Thanks for tagging Mattythewhite. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I've been pinged, I'll give my opinion. I would put domestic leagues first, followed by domestic cups, continental titles, continental super cups, global super cups, and then domestic super cups. But this shouldn't be about what we prefer, we should follow what reliable sources do. – PeeJay 18:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I've been pinged, and I don't really have a view, or any experience of editing pages about winners of multiple honours, I did a quick not-even-remotely-scientific survey of the first few I could think of, to see what system they use now. Most of them had domestic first (league, then real cups, then supercups); then continental (Champions League above Europa League above Supercup, or South American equivalent); and then Club World Cup/Intercontinental Cup if any, and it looks quite tidy and rational. Articles surveyed that used that ordering were Cristiano Ronaldo, Sergio Ramos, Robert Lewandowski, Luis Suárez, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Michael Carrick, John Terry, Alessandro Nesta, Paolo Maldini, Andreas Möller, Franck Ribéry, Johan Cruyff, James Milner, Thierry Henry, David Seaman, Neymar, Gianfranco Zola and more. The only articles surveyed that used a different ordering were Messi and Brazilian Ronaldo. Proves nothing, but it's interesting. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, for whoever is advocating for the order to be domestic -> continental -> minor, can they explain why they would prefer it to be that way (other than the fact that it's Soccerway's order)? My argument, and I think that of the others who agree with me, is that a Champions League title is more important than a Serie A title, which is more important than a Supercoppa Serie C title. With the order being continental -> domestic -> minor, we have a very "neat" and clear order of "importance". Sure, one could argue that the Club World Cup is less important than the Premier League, but the "average" continental title (say, the Europa League) is of more relevance than the average "domestic" title (for example, the FA Cup). Nehme1499 19:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, I checked a few of the major European clubs' honours section on their websites: Real Madrid, AC Milan, Barcelona and Sevilla prioritize continental over domestic, Bayern Munich, Manchester United and Inter Milan prioritize domestic, while Juventus, Liverpool, Chelsea and Atletico Madrid are mixed. Just to show that each club does things their own way. Nehme1499 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer honours to be listed in a chronological fashion. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And what happens when someone's only trophies are in a treble-winning season? Nehme1499 20:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Chronological makes sense, it spells out their career better and the order they won things.Muur (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, what happens when the only three trophies someone won were all in 2020–21? Which trophy goes above which? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 22:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * well you could go with the order they were won. So like, League Cup, then Fa Cup, the PL, then Champions League. (with the PL technically not being awarded until the final game is played, even if they won it earlier). but if it all comes down to it, then whatever order you guys feel fits. if someone wins the league in 2005, then wins the UCL in 2027 it'd feel wrong to put the UCL above the league. especially if they arent even with the same club. Muur (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honours are divided by clubs, so we would not display the 2005 league win alongside the 2027 CL win. And even if they won it with the same team, a player having a long career with the same club (and long timespans between winning one competition and another) is the exception, not the norm. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 02:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should even be entertaining the idea of listing honours chronologically except within a list of occasions when a player won a single competition. – PeeJay 13:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I know I am very late to this conversation but I edit honours sections quite regularly and have always edited as domestic before international and I list the honours within those sections by prestige/importance. I can see why people would want continental titles first but I don't think chronological makes since unless like said, if it's in the occasions where a players whens multiple titles within single competitions. And, the FIFA Club World Cup has been radically altered moving forward and is supposed to expand to 24 teams so winning the Champions League doesn't matter anymore for qualification to it. Here is an idea that I am proposing, maybe it's crazy, maybe it's not, and maybe people hate it or disagree. But what if we list the premier continental competition (UEFA Champions League, Copa Libertadores, or AFC Champions League) first and then National League, National Cup, League Cup, Domestic Super Cup, lesser/minor Continental Honours, etc. Also, I've always wondered if a domestic super cup, like the FA Community Shield, should be listed above the EFL Championship. I would say that it should be. So it would look like this if a person has won every title on offer:

Rupert1904 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * UEFA Champions League: 2019–20
 * Premier League: 2018–19, 2020–21
 * FA Cup: 2017–18
 * EFL Cup: 2015–16
 * FA Community Shield: 2017, 2019
 * UEFA Europa League: 2016–17
 * UEFA Super Cup: 2017
 * FIFA Club World Cup: 2020
 * I'm not sure we have either support or detractors. I prefer a simpler method, but let's see what others prefer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I said chronological above, however just to clarify. That is run in a tree pattern of; Club>honour >date. So the clubs are listed in order of career, (this is also chronological). It would just look wrong to me to scatter honours out of the club tree format. Ordering by competition in a club tree is still part chronological, but it would be considered a broken version. Govvy (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting scattering honours or getting rid of listing clubs within the honours section by chronological order. I mean that merely within each club section, maybe we could put the premier continental championship first (UCL, Copa Libertadores, AFC Champions Legaue, etc.) if a player's won that trophy, and then go by National League, National Cup, League Cup, National Super Cup, Secondary Continental Competition, Continental Supercup, etc. If a player hasn't won that then National League trumps and goes first. So like this then:

Template City
 * Championship: 2010–11

Template United Rupert1904 (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * UEFA Champions League: 2019–20
 * Premier League: 2018–19, 2020–21
 * FA Cup: 2017–18
 * EFL Cup: 2015–16
 * FA Community Shield: 2017, 2019
 * UEFA Europa League: 2016–17
 * UEFA Super Cup: 2017
 * FIFA Club World Cup: 2020
 * Having the domestic honours between two groups of continental honours doesn't make sense to me. We should keep all the domestic honours together, followed by continental, then worldwide. – PeeJay 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I am fine with that approach and that's how I organize honours when I make edits but according to the current MOS, apparently that's incorrect. I was merely attempting to come to a compromise/solution that makes everyone okay. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"International goals" table caption text
Hi folks. Our career statistics tables currently feature these caption texts:
 * club: "Appearances and goals by club, season and competition"
 * international appearances and goals: "Appearances and goals by national team and year"
 * international goals: "List of international goals scored by Tim Template"

A previously commonly found caption text for international goals was "International goals by date, venue, cap, opponent, score, result and competition".

For consistency with the caption texts of the other two tables wouldn't it make to sense to include "by date, venue, cap, opponent, score, result and competition"?

I'd propose the following as the new caption text for international goals "List of international goals scored by Tim Template, listed by date, venue, cap, opponent, score, result and competition".

What do others think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think adding "by date, venue, cap, opponent, score, result and competition" is a bit unnecessary. In lengthens the caption way too much. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 15:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Play-offs column in stats table
I've seen this more and more recently with players in the MLS like Mark-Anthony Kaye, Ricardo Pepi, Chris Wondolowski, etc. Is this the approved way to denote play-off stats? Or should these stats go in an other column with a note about the appearances? Other leagues around the world with a similar structure to the MLS (end of season play-offs to decide a champion & no promotion/relegation system) exist like the A-League and Indian Super League and I don't see players in those leagues having a play-off stats column. There's also a few leagues that have a European play-off like the Eredivise, Danish Superliga and Belgian First Division, and all of these stats go into the league apps or other column. It's fine if there was a consensus to make a play-off column but I just worry there is going to be a case of a footballer who plays in Brazil (where we use the state league column), then goes to America, and then on to Europe where he'll play in a country with a league cup and make European appearances and super cup appearances, and his stats table will be out of control with an excessive amount of columns. Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new player profile
How can I add a new player here Otunbolaji (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By "here" you mean on Wikipedia? See Help:Your first article. Let me know if you need more help. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes i need help...want to add my player's profile here Otunbolaji (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, what do you mean by "here"? Have you read the instructions I linked above? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I am trying to create a profile on wiki for my great grandad I have sources and information but can’t work out how to copy the general format,

Any help would be appreciated massively,

Even if someone could create the profile and I’ll add the correct information or advise me how to?

Best regards Lmurray1722 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * a name and some details would be great, and we can see where we go from there... GiantSnowman 22:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Capitalisation of "cup"
I agree with that "cup" should not be capitalised. "League Cup" is often used in UK context with a capital C for what I understand" – I would assume the reason for that is that in those cases the EFL Cup is referred to – the name of a specific league cup. We should use lower case for the concepts "national cup" and "league cup", upper case for specific names such as "EFL Cup" or "Algerian League Cup" or KNVB Cup. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this analysis, though it creates inconsistency with capitalisation for players such as Amad Diallo. "National cup" would refer to the Italian and English domestic cup, but since Italy doesn't have a league cup, "League Cup" would specifically refer to the EFL Cup. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 15:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's great. :-) I don't think the "inconsistency" is a major problem. If it turns out upon his retirement that Diallo has not played in a league cup other than the EFL Cup" we can change the name of column from "League cup" to "EFL Cup". Robby.is.on (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging to participate in the discussion. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 17:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add to Robby.is.on's assessment. The EFL Cup (formerly the Football League Cup) is an example of a league cup: "League Cup" is capitalised when referring to the Football League Cup/EFL Cup, but never when referring to the general concept of a league cup. – PeeJay 18:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm ok with whatever, just going by what I usually see in articles Mediocre Legacy (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem implementing this change. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 17:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

League Trophy
For "club statistics" tables of young players playing in England, why is the U21 team of the League Trophy the only time youth teams are included. I agree that the League Trophy is an odd case as it is completed by First teams and Reserve teams in the same competition. But surely as ever U21 link is actually to a teams U23 team you should include all stats not just for one competition, or a better idea move it into the same row as the senior side with a footnote saying it is an U21 side so you don't have multiple rows for the same season. Thoughts? Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it's a senior cup competition. GiantSnowman 19:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

English variety and ambiguous nationality
I have had a few issues lately with editors reverting some of my edits on grounds that, to my understanding, go against the general consensus of WP:FOOTY. Given that these edits related to the articles' varieties of English and the subjects' nationalities (or ambiguity thereof), I thought it would help to try to establish a more or less definitive consensus here to clear things up.

Here is the standard I tend to follow when making edits related to MOS:ENGVAR and nationality. I have based these on consensus (when I have seen it) and the clear standard as represented across thousands of articles:

As related to variety of English: 1) If the subject was born in a nation that has a particular variety of English (e.g. United States, South Africa, Australia, Canada, etc.) and has never represented another nation internationally (or any nation, for that matter), I use the birth nation's variety of English and change the note at the top of the edit page accordingly. 2) If the subject was born in one nation but represents another nation at international level that has a specific variety of English, I use the latter variety, as it is the nation with which the subject has the most recognizable national connection. I restrict their representation only to appearances for the national team (or youth teams), NOT call-ups.

As related to nationality in the lede: 1) If the subject was born in a nation and has never represented another nation (or any nation, for that matter), I use that nation as their nationality. Quite simple. Ex: Azalinullah Alias 2) If the subject was born in one nation but has most recently represented another nation internationally (at any level), I leave the lede ambiguous. Ex: Tom Cairney 3) If the subject was born in one nation, represented another nation (at any level), and then switched back and represented their birth nation, I use the nationality of their birth nation, which is also their most recent nation. Ex: Yunus Musah. 4) The variety of English I use directly correlates to the nationality used in the lede unless it is left ambiguous, in which case I use the variety of the most recent nation they have represented internationally.

I'd be amazed if this is a shock to anyone, as it follows what I have always seen as the consensus, or at least standard practice. Does anyone see anything I am missing, or does anyone vehemently disagree with these approaches. Thanks. Anwegmann (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It all makes sense to me, except for 3. I'd keep the nationality in the lead ambiguous there as well. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 21:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying about 3. I figure, though, that if they are actively representing their birth nation (or cap-tied to it, as is the case a lot of the time), it becomes rather unambiguous, as the nation in which they were born aligns with the nation they represent, regardless of what they did in between. That's at least the reasoning behind it. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get your point of view. My point is that they are dual nationals who acted upon their two nationalities. In the sense that they actively represented two nations at certain points in their career. Anyway, the rest of what you said is reasonable (and I don't have such a strong opinion on point 3 anyway). <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

English variety can change if necessary, right?
I hate to repeat myself (if I am), but I have continued to have an issue with an editor who has repeatedly reverted my addition of "" to footballers' pages. This editor claims that variety of English is established when the article is written, whether listed or not, and should never be changed (this occurred with a South African footballer listed originally using British English, which I changed to South African English and was reverted). To my understanding, this is against MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:TIES, and MOS:RETAIN, all of which make rather clear that if there is reason for it—such as "strong national ties"—the English variety of an article can change, and indeed ought to be changed. This has also happened in articles that do not yet have a note on English variety at the top. Twice now, I have added one (in this case adding a note on using Hiberno-English for an Irish footballer), and this editor has reverted it, claiming that the article was written in British English and cannot be changed. Am I missing something? Is it not correct that the English variety of an article should follow the variety of English used in the nation to which the subject has "strong national ties," regardless of what variety of English the article was written in originally? A mistake or incorrect information should not have privilege over correct information just because it has been in the article from the beginning. Any guidance or clarification on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Anwegmann (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct in saying that it can change. GiantSnowman 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will make the changes accordingly and link this discussion. Thank you. Anwegmann (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of these sort of edits are entirely academic. Apart from replacing “football” with “soccer”, I can see little difference between British English and South African English. And as for Hiberno-English, I’ve no idea. If an article is created about a footballer who is born in South Africa or Eire and moves to England at a young age and plays his entire footballing career in England, why should I, as a native speaker of English, be forced to attempt to write an article in another variety of English of which I have no knowledge? Unless Anwegmann plans to edit the articles on which he has tried to impose a different variety of English than that in which it was created, to comply with his preferred variety, what is the point of the edit? Simply adding this tag, and then moving on, is of no help to anyone. And I don’t accept that a discussion involving just two editors can create some sort of precedent. But if you wish to waste your time making these sort of edits, feel free. I will equally feel free to ignore them, but will not revert you in future. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

International goals revisited
Hello, I was wondering if I can get any feedback on this; under the section "Career statistics" there's the option to place a table that lists all the international goals scored by the player you're editing. I've seen these tables in slight varieties and tought it might be a good idea to simplify and unify the process. So I created a (very rudimentary) Lua module that creates the table - kinda like the Sports table module, but less complicated. The script is located on my temporary module sandbox (Module:Sandbox/BartVaes/Bananas) and a test table is on my userpage sandbox (User:BartVaes/sandbox). Be aware I didn't have any Lua knowledge before so this needs cleaning up :) Any feedback ? Good idea or not ? 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC) BartVaes (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice idea! Just a couple of nitpicks: endashes should be used for scores (1–1, not 1-1), and the scores should not be bolded. Other than that, it looks good. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 19:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another thing: how would we add custom competitions, such as the 2019 WAFF Championship? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 19:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this if it makes creating a table easier and if it follows the standard layout and formatting as shown at WikiProject Football/Players. For the latter, adding to what Nehme1499 already pointed out: a) The score of the player's team should go first, b) there should be a note above the table saying "Scores and results list Templatonia's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Template goal.". For the former, I'm not convinced the script makes it easier to read the table code? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! I replaced the dashes with endashes now. Meanwhile, some questions of my own:
 * the module re-uses the Template:International goals header which currently doesn't have a hide option. Maybe good idea to make it "collapsible" because some tables can get quite big.
 * the module auto-links text in stadium/city ("Venue") and "Competition" columns. Is this a problem with WP:OVERLINK ?
 * I added the bold markup for score/result because I'm looking for a way to maybe include the home/away team info, which is absent in the current template. I admit I sometimes forget to inverse the scores when entering data myself, so adding home/away markups could possibly reduce errors ? Can anyone link or summarize the reasoning for the current style? I couldn't immediately find it in the archives?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by: easier to read the table code ? The module generates the table code so editors don't have to. Sure, there's a visual editor but personally I find it still cumbersome when you have to rowspan/merge rows. My module attempts to solve these small issues and helps keeping a consistent style.
 * competitions are entered with the "comp" & "comp_alt" parameters. Of course, you have to make sure these pages exist, otherwise you'll just get red links.
 * BartVaes (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To resolve the OL issue, can you add a "nolink=" parameter? <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 09:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can anyone link or summarize the reasoning for the current style I don't think it makes sense to re-discuss table layout and formatting as part of this discussion. Let's stick to the merits of the script. We can revisit other aspects separately. Maybe good idea to make it "collapsible" because some tables can get quite big. Same with this point.
 * The module generates the table code so editors don't have to. Okay, that sounds promising. How can I try it out? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the formatting. You can copy/paste some sample code from my sandbox, see: User:BartVaes/sandbox.
 * @Nehme1499 I might just get rid of the auto-linking altogether, and leave it to the discretion of the editors - basically how it is atm. I'm also looking at other ways to pass parameters 'cause it's kinda clunky now. BartVaes (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Honours listing order
I have seen that in the manual of style it is said that honours should be ordered in the following manner: international, continental, domestic; but in the articles of every player the order is reversed. Is it a mistake? Dev Darshan T. K. (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like it. I don't remember seeing honours displayed in that particular order. International and continental honours usually appear after domestic honours. WP:WikiProject Football/Players should reflect how the majority of users edit, not the other way around. SLBedit (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have the changed it to "domestic (league, cup, league cup, super cup), international, continental". SLBedit (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)