This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAssociation football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
With the youth of the league at this point, there is no sense in it being broken down by decade, and it is definitely unnecessary to include the span with hidden years in it (if anything, those should be centered). I think in another decade or so (should the PDL last to that point), it would be ok to go ahead and break it down by decade, but at this point it would be better just to have them centered up.Mtndrums (talk)19:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@AFC Vixen: I don't like how the seasons for defunct leagues are hidden by default. For example, in2004 USL Pro Soccer League#References, when you expand the USL seasons navbox, you don't seeany USL-2 seasons. You have to click again to expand the "Defunct leagues" subsection. Do you have any ideas for how to improve this? Simply un-hiding it would make for a cluttered template.BLAIXX19:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like, we can split the navbox into two, if you genuinely feel that simply unhiding it by default would be unsatisfactory. Ultimately, it's a future goal of mine to perform a merge of some of, if not all, the defunct league seasons into single articles à la2005 United Soccer Leagues,2006,2007, ect. But I probably won't get to that for a while, since it'd be a massive undertaking, so maybe a split will do for now. —AFC Vixen 🦊22:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't watching this page so I didn't see your response. I've looked and found some other implementations of navboxes with collapsible sections where you can choose which section should be expanded by default (seeR4 41st Ave#External links). In our case, defunct leagues would show defunct league seasons by default.
Separately, I realize that dividing by defunct and active isn't the best because all of the pages would have to be updated if a league folds. A better division would be Men's outdoor / Women's outdoor / Indoor. After all, theUSL Championship feels more related to theUSL First Division than theUSL W League.BLAIXX21:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a mockup I made{{User:Blaixx/sandbox/USL seasons|indoor}} produces:
Active women's leagues being hidden on men's league articles, and vice versa, would be worse than active leagues being hidden on defunct articles, in my view. I know I alluded to merging some of the articles being a distant future project, but it honestly wouldn't bethat far in the future – maybe just a month or two from now – so, a league folding mid-season before I complete that project is very unlikely. Perhaps you'd like to compromise on a navbox that uses|selected= and|abbr= parameters like in your mockup, but for an active / defunct split instead of men's / women's / defunct? —AFC Vixen 🦊04:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the rationale behind merging seasons of play from different leagues? I've always thought that the 2005–09 season articles to be weird, especially because there was no crossover between the First and Second division (i.e. pro/rel or league cup).BLAIXX12:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being all run by the same league, I thought that to be an intuitive premise upon which to merge those articles which are often reliant on singular sources – almost always the same sources – to make it more centralised and convenient to read, and update when necessary. Efficiencies like properly replacing instances of{{Football box}} with{{Football box collapsible}} would also reveal how small these articles actually are when presented separately, too, and how mergers would still result in comfortably-sized articles like2005 United Soccer Leagues, ect. I'd like to ask again: are you okay with the compromise I proposed for now? —AFC Vixen 🦊12:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not sold that combining all of these unrelated leagues into the same navbox is a good idea in the first place. In terms of navigational utility, why does the2024 USL League One season need to link to the2004 USL W-League season? The only common thread between them is that they're run by the same company but I don't think that really matters all that much. At least leagues of the same type but different tiers have a little more in common which is why I mocked it up that way in my sandbox.BLAIXX19:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those two seasons are already linked, throughTemplate:2024 in American soccer. I get navigating to "same season, different league" and "different season, same league" but "different season, different league" seems like it is rarely useful and perhaps not worth the clutter.BLAIXX14:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To each their own, I guess, because I find{{2024 in American soccer}} to be obtusely cluttered, if{{USL seasons}} being "cluttered" is a genuine concern here. I just want there to be a relatively concise, easy-to-navigate navbox for all USL season articles. As I tried to tell you before, it's more nuanced than them being "different league"s – it seems you're hung up on the idea that pro/rel and league cups are the only ways a league can be related. —AFC Vixen 🦊01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
