Template talk:Football Information & Template talk:Football Links at HealthHaven.com

Template:Football is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

WikiProject Football

(Rated Template-Class)

Association football portal

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Template

This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

[edit] WikiProject Iran football

{{editprotect}} Please update the template with the code from Template:Football/sandbox to include the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran football. —Borgarde^talk 05:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any point? Do they want it? Are they going to be using assessments? Have all the categories been set up? Nanonic (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The project already has the assessment links laid out. I can create the categories in no time so that's no problem. It doesn't affect the main project at all so it's not controversial.—Borgarde^talk 13:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories are all made and added to the assessments list for Wikipedia 1.0, so the table will update on the next bots run if the code is updated by then. —Borgarde^talk 13:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{editprotected}} template. --El on ka 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Thanks for making my role in the project harder. The project already has all the assessment ready, it just needs to be implemented into the code, which I have provided for you. This is simply following what other country specific sub-projects already have. Why is Iran different? —Borgarde^talk 02:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Borgarde^talk 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not familiar with the code, so that is not the reason I declined the request. My role is just as an admin proxy to make changes to protected pages. We (admins) get a steady stream of requests at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, and we do some basic spot checks. For example: Is the request coherent, is it specific, is it non-controversial. If the answers to all are "yes", we make the change, and head off to the next request. If not, we mark it as not done (sometimes with automated templates, see {{EP}}), and again, move on to the next request. In this particular case, I saw a request, followed by another edit challenging the request. This sets off the "no consensus" flag, so we decline the request and move on. If you think tthat the change is a reasonable one, then just get a couple voices here saying, "Yes, good change" and resubmit the request. Or, try working things out with Nanonic, by following one of the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, perhaps by requesting comments from other editors by posting at WikiProjects. If it develops that there is a consensus in support of the change, then just re-submit the edit request, and then I or another admin will be along to implement it. :) --El on ka 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing in the code that changes is it allows "Iran=yes" to add assessments to Iran. This is WP:FOOTY's preferred way of sub-project assessment so they don't create their own banners. I was already willing to start the assessment for Iran football which shows you that editors are willing to start it, WP:Iran football already has the page set up so that when the assessment is enabled the page will already update. I don't see why this essentially non-controversial change was declined because the editor above questioned that everything was fine. His questions all had the answers of yes, which does not leave opposition. This has already taken up a lot of my time getting this ready and now it's going to take longer because I have to go through other channels, this is why sub-projects end up creating their own banners because it's simply easier. —Borgarde^talk 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Borgarde is now a member of the sub-proj, I assume there is a consensus there to enable the assessments so all my questions are answered. So please move Template:Football/sandbox across. Nanonic (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thanks very much for your patience. :) --El on ka 17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] yes or Yes

I believe the taskforce parameter values are case sensitive, so for example, England=yes would categorize the talk page, whereas England=Yes would not. Would it be possible to make it case insensitive? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I *think* that requires a change to Template:WPBannerMeta rather than this one. Paulbrock (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked at Template talk:WPBannerMeta, this would be nice if it can. —Borgarde^talk 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was provided with a fix at that page and have updated the code to allow for it. It's all tested and works fine. —Borgarde^talk 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The code is now updated at Template:Football/sandbox to allow for this. Please update. —Borgarde^talk 02:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Done --El on ka 05:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Something is wrong, but it maybe just me. Talk:Chris Cohen has England=Yes, and at the bottom of the talk page correctly shows the category Category:GA-Class football in England articles. But when I clicked through to that category (and hit F5), the page isn't listed. Anyone know what may be wrong? --Jameboy (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

See Help:Category#Adding_a_category_by_using_a_template in particular - "Changes to the template, however, may not be reflected immediately on the category page. When you edit an article to add a category tag directly, the list of category members is updated immediately when the page is saved. When a category link is contained in a template, however, this does not happen immediately: instead, whenever a template is edited, all the pages that transclude it are put into the job queue to be recached during periods of low server load. This means that, in busy periods, it may take hours or even days before individual pages are recached and they start to appear in the category list. Performing a null edit to a page will allow it to 'jump the queue' and be immediately recached." HTH Nanonic (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, that would make sense. Cheers for taking the time to explain. --Jameboy (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox-needed

Is there any way to merge or change the destination category for |infobox-needed? It seems the new template uses Category:Football articles needing infoboxes instead of the pre-existing Category:Articles that need a football biography infobox that was populated by {{needs football biography infobox}}. I guess either could be changed but note that the original is situated within WP:BIOs Category:Sports and games work group articles needing infoboxes. Nanonic (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think I might be going mad here. I suppose it may be wise to keep both formats, since the bio template will populate bios only and the football template can cover clubs and everything else as well. Nanonic (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The wording can always be changed, like add an appropriate infobox and link to the football infoboxes category. I think a general category like you pointed out is a good idea, because there is a lot of club, season, etc articles without infoboxes (which we have ones that can be used). —Borgarde^talk 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Persepolis F.C.

Please update the template with the code from Template:Football/sandbox to include the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Persepolis F.C. .Shahin (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iran_football enough? Do we really want to have a taskforce/Wikiproject for every big football team? Given that WP Iran Football is only a week old, and has only tagged 80-odd articles I'd oppose a separate set of assessment categories for Persepolis, at least for now. Paulbrock (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, although I commend the Persepolis F.C. taskforce for the interest shown in their efforts, I cannot believe that there is much scope within its remit beyond that which WikiProject Iran football already offers. – Pee Jay 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment. The project can be added to the banner without assessment, like Irish footy and Non-League do. And if it progresses in the future that the project thinks they need assessment then it can be changed easily by just typing a 'yes' into the code. —Borgarde^talk 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My perception is that there are too many task forces and sub-projects for individual clubs, and several of these just seem to create extra admin without adding much value, though I'm probably over-generalising. Peejay, the Manchester United taskforce seems to have produced some very good work recently - do you think having a task force in place has helped to achieve that, or could the same have been done without a task force? I think it is worth pointing out that of the clubs that have reached Featured Topic status (Gillingham, Ipswich Town, York City and Aston Villa), none have a dedicated task force or project purely for that club. --Jameboy (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that having the Manchester United task force in place helped organise efforts towards improving various articles, but I do believe that the work would have been done eventually anyway. There is, however, a bit of a difference between Persepolis and Manchester United, in that Manchester United has a lot more related articles than Persepolis does, and so a task force seemed like a logical thing to implement. – Pee Jay 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Iran footy is still new, (I'm waiting for a bot to tag the articles for me - shouldn't be long..), I honestly don't believe individual club ones are essential either. But different editors like different things. I'm not against anything at a country level though because there is a lot to work on in each country compared to a club. (Just a note as well, administratively this template is a lot easier to add task forces than it used to be.)—Borgarde^talk 12:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nesting

Can anyone explain why the football box on this talkpage is not nested? King of the North East 20:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Because nesting in templates is not designed to work outside of a bannershell - either {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}}. Nanonic (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

Resolved. It wasn't this template making the error

Does this template automatically assign the page to the WikiProject Football articles category with a default sort key. This seems to be wrong as biographical articles are usually categorised as Surname, Forename. While the articles name will be Forname Surname, and this seems to be how they are assigned to WP Football categories. I believe it is creating a conflict of default sort keys, and should be fixed. Giving a red error message under {{football}} - for example in Liam Miller, Roy Keane. I cannot attempt to fix this as I'm not an admin, so is there any chance someone else could fix this please. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This template doesn't use any sortkeys at all. However Template:WikiProject Ireland is on both pages and uses {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }} in it's sourcecode. Moving that template up and down the page on preview shows the warning moving with the Ireland banner's placement. Might be worth giving them the heads up. Nanonic (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep it's definitely the Irish template (unless WPBANNERMETA has some secret setting), just tried it out with every combination of placements and then removal of individual banners and the problems all magically go away when the WP Ireland one is removed. Nanonic (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And the current proposal about all this on Wikipedia:Proposals#Change_default_category_sortkeys points out that the WP Ireland banner is causing problems elsewhere too. Nanonic (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It was the WP Ireland temlate and it has since been fixed. Sorry to trouble anybody. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taskforce on Association Football variants

{{editprotected}}

I need the code put in for this taskforce, I made it myself and put it into Template:Football/sandbox and Template:Football/doc but then realised that I need an administrator to put it on the main template. This is the code:

 |tf 5=  |TF_5_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Taskforce on Association Football variants  |TF_5_NAME            = the Football variants task force  |TF_5_IMAGE           = Futsal pictogram.svg   |TF_5_SIZE           = 40x40px  |TF_5_QUALITY         = yes  |TF_5_IMPORTANCE      = yes   |tf 5 importance=   |TF_5_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Football variant articles  |TF_5_MAIN_CAT        = WikiProject Football Football variant articles

I am making the categories right now, but I need an administrator to put the code in. Thanks! 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 13:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, if anyone has a better picture, please tell me. 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 13:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{editprotected}} template. Stifle (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already completed the categories for this template (see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Football_variant_articles_by_quality_statistics for the full table). Instead of tagging them with {{Football}} and then putting them into the seperate categories myself, it would be a lot easier with {{Football|Variants=yes}}. Test it out in the sandbox yourself, make your own opinions. I do not think that this is a controvertial edit. As I have made the categories and tested this template with all sub-projects and taskforces at Football/sandbox, I can assure you that there will be no disruption. Also, a different picture would be better, perhaps with a ball from Beach Football or something. 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 20:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First let me say, there is no point in rushing. Take your time, get things ready, check your code thoroughly and create the assessment category that you've missed. You could also consider using File:Paralympics 2008 Football 5-a-side pictogram.svg or File:Futsal pictogram.svg as your icon. You are currently running the taskforce on your own - are you adding assessment functions purely for your own need or do you see more people joining up soon? Nanonic (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the code, and you can see it in action on my own sandbox. I think everything is okay with that. Also, when I started the taskforce I believed that we would have five members (see here). However, in the five months that it took to get this amount of supporters - one of the unfortunate disadvantages of the Proposals system of WikiProject Council - one of them stopped editing Wikipedia, and I left a message on the other supporters talk pages. The person who suggested it has joined though. However, I am still looking for members, as I can see that there are a lot of people who would be interested, and I am pretty sure they would find it easier through this template - Trying not to rush, 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 11:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{lc: switch at the beginning of the taskforce hook, without it the template won't accept "Yes" inputs but will accept "yes" inputs. You also still need to create that last remaining essential assessment category, once that's done I see no prob in moving the version from Template:Football/sandbox across. Nanonic (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the lower case hook, and for telling me about the FL category. I wasn't sure whether to use that, as there are many categories that seem to be optional, and I was only going to include if I needed it. Thanks - 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 09:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there for consensus for this? And if so, can you put the code in a sandbox, please? Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is in the sandbox. Also, no-one has complained about putting the code in, some people have supported it, including WP:FOOTY, as their page on task forces says that "by creating task forces and integrating them into the projects talk page banner, {{football}}, the amount of clutter on talk pages is also minimised", meaning they probably prefer the use of this template. Also, I don't think this counts as a controvertial edit - most people won't even notice that it is there. 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think much is happening on this front, and although I am trying to be patiant, this is obstructing the progress that I expected this taskforce to make. I am sorry if something is being done about this, but I think, judging by the lack of criticism, disagreement etc. on this page, that it is okay to put the code in now? DeMoN2008 21:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Please, update documentation. I also want to note that {{#lc: parser functions are not necessary, because tf_N parameters only need to be defined. They do not need to assume some predefined value (yes, for instance). Ruslik (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For this template the #lc: is necessary as for some reason (unless the code of the metatemplate has been updated) the sandboxed version without the lc switch wouldn't accept both "yes" and "Yes" inputs. Nanonic (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Has a recent change affected formatting?

{{editprotected}} Bits of formatting or code have started appearing on instances of the template. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football or Talk:Eddie Colman. If it's something to do with a recent change, should the change be reverted till it's sorted out? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Code is also appearing on the revision that predated my revision. So a revert will not solve the problem, which is probably related to BannerMeta. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Code addition for season article task force required

{{editprotected}} Could an admin please insert the following code at the bottom of the template so that tagging articles to be in the scope of the season article task force is possible? The edit should be uncontroversial, as a collaborative effort on those articles is endorsed by the WikiProject.

 |tf 6={{{Season|{{{season|}}}}}}  |TF_6_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Season article task force  |TF_6_NAME            = '''the season article task force'''  |TF_6_IMAGE           = Soccerball current event.svg   |TF_6_SIZE           = 40x40px  |TF_6_MAIN_CAT        = Football (soccer) seasons

--Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done it, but you may like to reconsider Category:Football (soccer) seasons as it doesn't seem to be a category suitable for talk pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Could you please change the category to Category:WikiProject Football season articles, then? :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since I seemingly was too late with the response last time and one week has passed without any actions, I had to bring up the template again, sorry. Could someone please change the category to Category:WikiProject Football season articles? Thank you, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, that's what we're here for :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Assocation -> association

Can someone please change the Association in the template text? It shouldn't be capitalised in the middle of a sentence. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed improvement

Hi all, I noticed that this template provides for multiple task forces, but that each task force is forced to use the importance rating of the main WikiProject. I had a suggestion that would allow task forces to use this importance rating by default, but override it without drastically changing the format of the template.

Currently, if an editor puts the parameter ManUtd=yes, for instance, then the article becomes a part of that task force, with the main WikiProject's importance rating. I propose that we allow editors to put ManUtd=Top, High, Mid, or Low, in addition to yes. If this parameter is populated with any value, then the article would become a part of the task force. If the value is "yes", then everything would behave as it does now, using WikiProject Football's importance rating. If the value is one of Top, High, Mid, or Low, then the task force-specific importance rating would take on that value.

The code for Manchester United looks like the following (again, I'm just using Manchester United as an example, but the same would apply to every task force):

 |tf 2={{{ManUtd|{{{manutd|}}}}}}  |TF_2_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Manchester United task force  |TF_2_NAME            = the Manchester United task force  |TF_2_IMAGE           = Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg  |TF_2_SIZE            = 40x40px  |TF_2_QUALITY         = yes  |tf 2 importance      ={{{importance|}}}  |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT  = Manchester United F.C. articles  |TF_2_MAIN_CAT        = Manchester United F.C. task force articles

I propose we change that to something like the following:

 |tf 2={{{ManUtd|{{{manutd|}}}}}}  |TF_2_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Manchester United task force  |TF_2_NAME            = the Manchester United task force  |TF_2_IMAGE           = Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg  |TF_2_SIZE            = 40x40px  |TF_2_QUALITY         = yes  |tf 2 importance      ={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{ManUtd|{{{manutd|}}}}}}}}|yes|{{{importance|}}}|{{{ManUtd|{{{manutd|}}}}}}}}  |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT  = Manchester United F.C. articles  |TF_2_MAIN_CAT        = Manchester United F.C. task force articles

Note that the only line that changed is the tf 2 importance parameter. The code basically does a check - if the parameter equals "yes", then it defaults to the importance; if it equals anything else (such as ManUtd=Top), then the importance for that specific task force is set to that value. I'm not a template expert, so someone may have to correct that, but I think it would let us use this template much more effectively by only making a few minor changes. Cheers. ← George^talk 07:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tested this out on the sandbox, and tweaked the code accordingly. It seems to work in all cases now, both with upper and lowercase "yes", as well as with values like Top, High, Mid, Low. You can see the new test case I've created for this edit at the bottom of this page (note that the Manchester United task force has a different importance rating in the last template). ← George^talk 08:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a fantastic idea. Not only is there a minimal change to the current code of this template, but it would also be extremely simple to add an intra-task force importance to articles. Good work, George! – Pee Jay 08:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PeeJay! I'm hoping this isn't a controversial change, since it just adds useful functionality, without changing the existing behavior where the template is already in use. I've updated all the task forces listed in the template in the sandbox. I'm going to request an administrator implement the changes. Cheers. ← George^talk 08:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I'm requesting an administrator make the changes I've outlined above. I've already implemented and tested them in full, based on an exact copy of the template, at the template's sandbox. I believe all an admin will have to do is copy the sandbox code directly over the current template code. Thanks! ← George^talk 08:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A specific diff of my changes can be viewed here. ← George^talk 09:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh George, if only all editrequesters were like you... Skomorokh, barbarian 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle Sounders FC task force

{{editprotected}} I'd like to add the Seattle Sounders FC task force to this template, as a way to help its members identify and better organize articles they're interested in improving. I don't think that this is an contentious change (similar task forces are already integrated into this template). I've updated the sandbox, and tested it against updated test cases. All that's required to implement this is for an admin to copy the sandbox over the template. Cheers. ← George^talk 15:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Skomorokh, barbarian 15:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Contents