Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 103

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Kosovo joins UEFA

If anyone has missed it, Kosovo has now been voted in to UEFA (see this announcement). Does that mean we should add Kosovo to all UEFA events and articles such as UEFA coefficient. Qed237 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Kosovo even have a UEFA coefficient yet? If it does, it's likely to be 0.000. I say only include them when other sources do. – Pee Jay 13:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: If you look at this diff how it was done for Gibraltar, the were added without any coefficient with a tag saying "NEW". But I dont know when it was added. Qed237 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Ping again since I forgot to sign. Qed237 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think adding them as appropriate to tables such as that at UEFA coefficient is a good idea, if only to stop people adding them in a clumsy manner. I presume that their acceptance is too late to get teams into the 2016-17 European competitions, and I don't think there's a need to add them to things that they've not entered - they'll gradually appear as their teams start entering competitions. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also worth a heads up that both Kosovo and Gibraltar may be admitted to FIFA next week too (and therefore also make it into the 2018 qualifiers). Number 5 7 21:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo Women's Football League. League article should be notable, the teams probably not. -Koppapa (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The Kosovo national team page has a list of caps and goals, and I assume this data is also on the players' pages. Does all of this get reset to 0 because it's now an official team? I take it that was what was done with the Gibraltarian players '''tAD''' (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we usually listing FIFA caps, so essentially nothing has changed by Kosovo joining UEFA. -Koppapa (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case we should deduct caps that any European player won against Gibraltar '''tAD''' (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we include caps against confederation-recognized, but non-FIFA, teams. Yes, Kosovo caps would now typically be reset to '0', or older caps described as 'unofficial'. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo's statuses in historical tournaments

It's natural to indicate Kosovo as "part of Serbia/SCG/Yugoslavia" before its unilaterally proclaimed independence in 2008, like Slovenia was "part of Yugoslavia" before 1991. But how shall we now indicate its status between 2008 and 2016? On one hand, some countries do recognize its independence, so retaining it as "part of Serbia" would be problematic. On the other hand, other countries do not recognize its independence, so upgrading it as "not a UEFA member" (implying that it was now an independent country) would be problematic too. --Theurgist (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically England, Wales, Scotland are not independent either, but play, since they are members of FIFA and UEFA. Similarly Faroe Islands are not independent from Denmark but they play as well. Kosovo was without doubts part of Serbia prior 2008. What is politically nwoadays is complex, but for what matters for us for counting Kosovo national team caps, FIFA has decided some years ago to allow Kosovo to play FIFA-sanctioned friendlies, so I think we should count them from that point on. FkpCascais (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that describing it, from 2008-2016, as "not a UEFA member" seems the most accurate description. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically by FIFA and UEFA stand, the territory of Kosovo was part of the Serbian FA between 2006 till now. I will invite an ALbanian editor to express his view as well on this. FkpCascais (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think that principally we should take examples of Faroe Islands and Gibraltar, since they aren't fully independent but play as a national football team. Then the second is that we should wait what UEFA will decide in continuation. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

When to switch a player's nationality?

American-born Jeremy Hall (soccer) just accepted a call-up to the Puerto Rico national football team for the match this Sunday. Would it be appropriate to change his flag from American to Puerto Rican & also change the opening sentence of his article to "Jeremy Hall is an American-born Puerto Rican soccer player..." (ala Josh Saunders)? Or should that only be done if and when he actually hits the pitch for PR? American Money (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems he's set his FIFA nationality to Puerto Rica, so in my opinion it should be changed. It's also the way it was done for other players e.g. Josh Saunders & Elliott Bennett, who was called up for Jamaica but I believe has never actually played for them. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this footballer the one you are talking about? If so FIFA clearly sees him as American and I have always gone with the last nation the player has played for. Until he has played he can change back to America anytime. Qed237 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's him. He's got youth caps for USA but never had a senior call-up. He's rostered for Puerto Rico for the game against the US this weekend though. Elliott Bennett was called up to the Jamaica senior squad but never played for them, that's the closest parallel I know of. American Money (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Since Eliott Bennett has not played, he is not listed at FIFA and also he has no "FIFA nationality" so it is locigal to list Jamaica after being called. Jeremy Hall however, played most recently for America and could still change his mind, so I would keep him as an American until he has played for Jamaica. Qed237 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk

Should FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk be renamed?

I just noticed that the city Dnipropetrovsk will be renamed (or has it been already?) according to this and editors has started to move Dnipropetrovsk as well as change content in FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk. The club has their official page at www.fcdnipro.ua and at the bottom of http://www.fcdnipro.ua/en/index/ it states "Official site of FC Dnipro, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine" and "© FC Dnipro, 2000-2016. All rights reserved" suggesting that the real name is "FC Dnipro" without "Dnipropetrovsk" but this is far from my area so input needed. Qed237 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like UEFA still uses FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk. Qed237 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This probably needs an admin to move protect if/when the inevitable wheel war starts. If UEFA still call them FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk and other reliable sources still call them that, then that should be the name. As for the city itself, that's probably going to cause a long string of arguments (as Kiev/Kyiv has done). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Move request ongoing

Hello all

There is a move request at Talk:List of English Football League managers#Requested move 7 May 2016 that affects a page attached to this project. Please contribute if you so desire. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible duplicate article

Hello project members – during the process of tidying up WikiProject Colombia I came across the articles Francisco Cassiani and Geovanis Cassiani. They have been tagged for possible merger and indeed they do look like they could be the same person, despite having different birth dates and having entirely different information included in each of their articles. Can anybody more knowledgeable than me about Colombian football in the 1990s confirm if they are one and the same, and if so, which article should they be merged into, i.e. was he known as Francisco or as Geovanis during his playing career? Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

They seem to have different (and a little more detailed) careers at Italian wiki -BlameRuiner (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the merge proposal, per the above, and the fact there's no discussion started since 2013. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph2302 – for such a football-loving country, you'd think someone would want to take on the task of sorting out the football player stubs and improving them, but most of them are in a truly terrible state: badly categorised and missing WikiProject tags, poor spelling and grammar, no updates since 2012 or 2013, and poorly sourced. Most of them are for pretty un-notable journeyman club players so I'm not in any rush to fix them up. Richard3120 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spanish speakers?

I've just created the article Javier Tebas, but it could be improved with translation from the Spanish language article here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Euro 2016 on Wikidata

Hi all,

Wikidata has now a special page for Euro 2016: d:Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Euro 2016. There are discussions here. It could be usefull for Wikipedia maybe...

--Tubezlob (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Contributions of Egorg13

I have to go out, but I would appreciate if someone could look at the contributions of Egorg13. He claims to work in PR for Dinamo Tbilisi and is creating articles on their players. Besides the obvious WP:COI, the articles are unlikely to be notable, as the Georgian league isn't fully professional. Valenciano (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've left them a paid editing message, and explained why Georgian league footballers aren't notable. Hopefully they'll stop, or at least start talking. If they do remove the PROD tags, then I guess we can AfD them all together. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I managed to prod all the pages, except for those which had already been at AFD and could therefore go through CSD:G4. This seems to have happened in February as well, so there does seem to be a longer term issue with that account. Valenciano (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

user has been blocked for a week by Doc James, who's also deleted all the articles too. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes they came up as copyright issues here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EranBot/Copyright/rc Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Bojan Djordjic move request

Since tennis player Bojan Djordjic is tagged as being of interest to this wikiproject, please join in the move discussion at Talk:Bojan_Djordjic#Requested_move_19_May_2016. Rovingrobert (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tuvalu

Hello, have you got surname of Tuvalu national football team? Each oceanian team has got a surname and I don't find it to Tuvalu. Can you help me?Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Surname? This means last name in English. Do you mean nickname? Number 5 7 22:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I want to say nickname.--FCNantes72 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

List of english football clubs who have never graced the top flight

Thought I'd bring this to peoples' attention before it inevitably gets deleted. I found it amusing at least... Mattythewhite (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Where are Port Vale on this list? Why does 'league football' include non-league football? What are 'league recognised cup wins'? So many questions.--Echetus Xe 08:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The guy who created this list (and his IP and, according to this SPI request his sock) has been a real bane at Rotherham United F.C. over the past few months. It's more of a case of WP:Competence than anything deliberate in my books. Gricehead (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In fairness it is a subject that is sometimes raised [1], usually in the context of "what's the biggest town/city that's never had a top flight club" (nowadays Plymouth, was Hull until 2008-ish). Presumably only worth mentioning in the context of the clubs/places concerned, rather than as a standalone article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Template: nat fs g start

Hello - is there any way to remove the numbers column when using this template? It strikes me that they're frequently unsourced and, particularly with youth squads, you'll get a new influx of players and then have an ugly looking page where only half the players have numbers until someone emerges to fill them in from somewhere (if they do at all). You can of course not fill in the numbers field, but the column will still appear. Thanks, HornetMike (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, that column is often not or barely filled... it is one of the confusing things with the volatile nature of national selections. Not only do new people arrive, but existing players can of course change numbers too. On the Belgium article, we make sure that either none of the numbers are filled, or all of them are; and a note above the table says on what date these numbers were accurate (if they are present).

It is possible to update {{nat fs g start}} to enable the numbers column to be hidden, but then the {{nat fs g player}} would also need to be updated so that it also omits the first column. Otherwise the table layout would be very messed up. Unfortunately, it's not possible to hide a column with a change only to the header (within the Wikipedia limitations). That makes the whole thing a bit prone to errors I think: every single line needs to be updated to hide or show the column. Perhaps I could add the parameter to both templates, and then create aliases such as {{nat fs g nn start}} and {{nat fs g nn player}}: adding or removing that 'nn' (no numbers) is probably easier and clearer than adding/removing parameters. –Sygmoral (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've been thinking a bit and without wishing to complicate it further, I'd suggest there's a case for removing caps/goals column too on both this and the "nat fs r start" template as well. For anything below the under-21 age group I'm really not sure where the caps totals are being sourced from a lot of the time and given that players don't tend to sit in an age-group for more than a year I'm not sure the column adds much context either, given they all tend to be single figures. Any notable call-ups etc could be covered in prose. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point. So in short, aside of the existing version without a goals column ({{nat fs player}}) we would add a version that removes three columns: player numbers, caps and goals. We could call it {{National football squad player (light)}}, with abbreviation {{nat fs l player}} (consistent with how the versions (goals) and (recent) are abbreviated). That makes it sound general, even if it is only used for youth teams. It could be used for any team where caps/goals/numbers are hard to come by. I would only create the 'current squad' version for now; no 'recent' version (although we could add that later). Sound good? Any objections? :) –Sygmoral (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds great! Sorry to create a load of work! Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well then, the relevant templates have been created! Feel free to try it out with {{nat fs l start}} and {{nat fs l player}}. –Sygmoral (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Table notes

I think we should discuss reducing notes in league tables. I think a note explaining cup wins are good since it is league tables, like in {{2015–16 Primera Divisió Championship Round table}} or {{2015 Allsvenskan table}}. But how about the situation when qualification spots are reallocated when cup winners have already qualified through league? Are these really needed? For example in {{2015–16 Austrian Football Bundesliga table}}, {{2015–16 Croatian First Football League table}} and {{2015–16 Cypriot First Division Championship Round table}} we have these note explaining how spots are adjusted.

I would love some input. Qed237 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Callum Reynolds and Boreham Wood

I reviewed Draft:Callum Reynolds at Articles for Creation. I declined it, saying to see association football notability guidelines. User:Lasko26 then asked me:

May I have some help with my submission draft for Callum Reynolds of Boreham Wood FC. He is the only player in our squad now not to have a full wiki page, especially with him being the club captain. Hopefully once I've got the hang of it, I be able to help out with football at this level in the wiki community. Apologies if this is not the done thing, still trying to get used to the wiki communication effort. It's hard a medium and I've been working on this draft in my spare time since the beginning of May. Should I reference BBC Sport/National & Local Newspapers web sites as a reference for Callum playing professional football under Boreham Wood (Conference Premier) as an internet source as I only have physical football programmes I collect otherwise. Here is the match report from BBC Sport website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36118755) of the last game of the season we played against Welling United in the National League Conference Premier (Step 5 of English Football Pyramid), 'Reynolds' is under the starting line ups. He has been ever present all season. He has a full time squad number of 6 because at semi professional football, you don't have assigned squad numbers and just have numbers 1-11 on the day and players have different shirt numbers per game. His profile is now on Sky Sports too. http://www.skysports.com/football/player/18498/callum-reynolds I have added this BBC match report to his profile of the game against Welling United.

Since this project maintains the notability guidelines, either I have misread the guidelines, and they do say that his team, Boreham Wood is a first-tier professional team, or they don’t say that. If I have misread the guidelines, please explain how I have misread them, and he gets his page. If the guidelines aren’t clear as to the status of the league and therefore of the club, but all of the other players have their pages, then the guidelines should probably be revised.

(Americans don't understand the league structure of how the game that in England is called football or association football is played.)

Do the editors here agree that this player is playing in a fully professional team and is entitled to his page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and Lasko26: - Mr Reynolds might well be a professional player, and he might well play for a professional team - but he does not play in a fully-professional league which is what is required by WP:NFOOTBALL. He also does not appear to meet WP:GNG. He is therefore non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In that case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may apply to the fact that the other players on the team have their own articles in the English Wikipedia, although they may qualify if they previously played with a team in a fully professional league. Thank you for taking a look. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It is highly usual for professional players to drop out of The Football League (the fully-professional league in England) as they get older, and play (sometimes still as a professional, sometimes semi-pro) in lower divisions. That is likely the case of the Boreham Wood players with articles. Giant Snowman 17:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The case of professional players dropping below Wikipedia's radar while continuing to play is not unfamiliar to an American sports fan. It does apply in baseball and in ice hockey, in which there are so-called minor leagues below Major League Baseball or the so-called National Hockey League (which isn't national because it serves two nations that are proudly independent). If a player in a minor league has made even one appearance in Major League Baseball or the National Hockey League, he is ipso facto notable. Thank you for explaining. (In American football and basketball, the situation is different because the second tier of play is college football or college basektball, and players can't drop back into college play.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The submitter says that Boreham Wood now plays in the National League Premier. Is that correct? If so, does that qualify, or is that still one tier below? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite its rather grandiose name, it is the fifth level of English football and one level below the lowest league recognised as fully professional. The league Boreham Wood play in has some part-time teams in (see for example [2] in which the manager of Altrincham, another team in the same league last season, noted at the start of said season "We’re a part-time team who train on Tuesday and Thursday nights") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Qualification goals in top scorer tallies

Should goals scored in qualification rounds be included in the overview of the top scorers in a season of a given competition? Champions League articles for example don't include the goals scored in the qualifiers and play-offs, but Copa del Rey articles do include goals scored in the first three rounds. (We never call them qualification rounds anywhere for some reason, but that's of course what they are and how they are categorised by the LFP and RFEF.)

Most CdR articles are wholly unreffed and I tried to remedy that, but ended up reverted by an IP because my sources only include the tournament proper. So I need to know: do we or do we not include qualifying goals? Or does it vary per competition? Thanks. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Easiest way is probably to go by what's easiest to source. Also it depends on competition, if the top scorer award includes qualifying goals for example, those probably should be included. -Koppapa (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Fb cm match

Hi, there seems to be some problem or undocumented feature of {{Fb cm match}}. It displays in some cases {{{rep_s}}} this parameter is not mentioned in the documentation and shows if not-set. Looking at code it appears to be something to do with another undocumented parameter {{{Rep}}} which appears to be a report link. Does this differ from {{{ml}}} and when is one used rather than the other? You can see the problems on 2007–08 Leeds United F.C. season#Competitive Keith D (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem with all these fb-template mess :) Noone understands them. Would probably be best to convert to a plain wikitable, or football boxes.-Koppapa (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You may well be right as there are only 11 uses of the template. Keith D (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

collapsible template vs. non-collapsible tables

Has there been any consensus about using collapsible templates or non-collapsible tables for match reports? The Manual of Style for scrolling lists and collapsible content states "collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." Kingjeff (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally like collapsible templates just in terms of general appearance if there's a lot of match reports, but most articles I've seen seem to have them as non-collapsible. -Gopherbashi (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Taça da Liga top scorers

Should {{Taça da Liga top scorers}} exist? SLBedit (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 MNZ Koper and MNZ Nova Gorica season

Is 2015–16 MNZ Koper and MNZ Nova Gorica season notable? Seems do be some sort of 4th level league in Slovenia (regional) if you look at Football in Slovenia. Qed237 (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw a bunch of these at Template:2015–16 in Slovenian football. Qed237 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

English Leagues – Season article crossover

Hi - Quick question. What's considered the date where events start to reported in a 2016–17 season article rather than in a 2015–16 season article, for English League clubs? Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If players have just left a club, then that would usually go in the 2016—17 article I believe. Matches wise, 2016—17 article is for matches from 1 July 2016 until 30 June 2017. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

To be precise, this is to do with the departure of Mr Warnock and his team on 18 May. This has occurred before any players have been released. I took the bold decision to include the departure in the 2015–16 article, starting the 2016–17 with a vacant manager position.Gricehead (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Mr Warnock participated in 15/16 and won't have any effect on 16/17 (other than the division they'll be playing in). Presume that when they do make a new appointment, you'd mention why one was needed. Some season articles begin with an introductory section that includes a brief summary of the previous season, see e.g. 2015–16 York City F.C. season#Background and pre-season, which would be a good place for that sort of thing.

Similarly with players being sold before the end of June, or released, or leaving on a Bosman once their contracts expire on 30 June. Personally, I'd list them as 15/16 Transfers out, because they participated in 15/16 but left before they could take any part in the new season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Struway, I can't see the sense of having staff/player who leave at the end of their 15/16 contracts on the 16/17 articles. They have not participated in the 16/17 season.--Echetus Xe 17:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur as well - it;s still the 2015–16 season. Giant Snowman 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about the outs list in the transfers section? In which case, I absolutely disagree - I believe all summer releases should be in 2016–17 articles. I think the user case is pretty clear - people will be going to those articles to see how squads have changed ahead of the new season. If we're stuffing release lists at the bottom of outs pages in 2015–16 (or early signings in the ins), just because they've fallen one side of an arbitrary June/July boundary, and despite the players having played for those teams all season (potential cause of confusion), we're not serving users well in my view. Also, it'd be a change in style to how the vast majority of season articles tend to have done in until now - not a reason not to change things, but you would have to do a lot of changes to make everything consistent year-by-year. As for Warnock, listing as vacant and noting his departure in prose makes sense I reckon, as people have said. Thanks, HornetMike (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see listing them on the 'current season' is the norm going back to the 1890s. So there would be a hell of a lot more work switching out transfers to the 'future season' across the project. You're argument seems to be a bit recentist. Surely in a few years time people looking back on the 2015/16 season will want to see who was released at the end of the season and be rather perplexed as to why they have to click on the 2016/17 articles to find out who left the clubs at the end of the 2015/16 season? Struway mentioned a background section, where recent departures can be mentioned, adding context to the 'future season' articles to clear up any confusion you think may occur.--Echetus Xe 14:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Belatedly! Sorry, I still disagree. I won't speak for articles covering older seasons without doing a big sweep but I'm struggling to think of any season articles - admittedly, typically recent - that put the releaseds at the end of the old season rather than the start of the new one. Arbitrarily clicking through a few old season articles, there was very little evidence of transfer sections at all. And no, speaking anecdotally, I'd say users would want to see pre-season squad re-shaping in a singular place, whether the season is recent or old and that most would see the final match as the end of a season's activity, with anything after that viewed in the context of the new one. Also, I think the final match of the season works much better as an end point that isn't open to interpretation. Sure, most European contracts end 30 June now, but did they always? Where do you place the signing of a free agent before 1 July? Etc. Cheers, HornetMike (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Harry Salt / Harold Salt

My Port Vale book said Harold Salt joined Port Vale from Ravensdale (a very obscure local club from what I can tell) in December 1925 and played six games before disappearing into obscurity in summer 1926. So when a much more detailed career was in-putted around that Port Vale spell I thought it must have been the same person. However the English National Football archive lists Harold Salt and Harry Salt separately, saying Harry Salt was at Peterborough & Fletton United from 1924 and joined Queens Park Rangers for the 1926/27 season, with no mention of Port Vale. Harold Salt is listed with Port Vale following Ravensdale with no other information. Has anyone got any sources that list the Harold Salt at Port Vale or are they separate people as ENFA seem to believe?--Echetus Xe 10:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: is very good with Crystal Palace players. Giant Snowman 10:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not that good... The sources I have (which are CPFC oriented) agree with the Palace information already in the article, except that Salt was a defender, playing most of his games for the club at No.5 with the remainder at 4 or 6. One source (reliable) also claims he was AKA 'Henry' rather than Harry. His profile at holmesdale.net (not necessarily reliable) also claims this but there may be some mirroring going on. Sorry, not much help. Eagleash (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Joyce (2004) has them as separate people: Harold Salt, a half-back, known as Harry playing for Brighton, for whom he played 6 and scored 2 in the Football League, Mexboro, Fletton/Peterboro, QPR, Palace etc etc and not Vale, and Harold Salt, an outside left, playing for Ravensdale and Vale only. Although this addition to the article cites Joyce (2012), and if Joyce has combined them, and if he had good reason to do so, you'd think ENFA might have done the same.

Kenneth Westerberg at QPRnet has Harry Salt joining from Fletton in May 1926, having previously played 6 and scored 2 in the Football League.

There are newspaper reports for a Salt playing in the halfback line for Fletton on 19 Dec 1925 and 2 Jan 1926, i.e. a week before and a week after a Salt made his debut at outside left for Vale on 25 Dec 1925. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If the QPR Salt signed from Fletton that 'jumps' the Vale period, which might give more credence to there being 2 different players. Eagleash (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Beatpoet: expanded the article based on a book about Brentford, might be good to get word of what exactly that book says......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, been away from home for a few days. I wish to bring in @Thebees1889:, who is probably the foremost Brentford historian of the internet generation. My principle reference, Timeless Bees, names him as Harold Salt, born Ecclesfield circa 1901, wing half, played for Brighton & Hove Albion, Mexborough Town, Peterborough & Fletton United, Port Vale, Queens Park Rangers, Grays Thurrock, Crystal Palace, Brentford (1929-1932), Walsall (1932-1933), Yeovil & Petters United (1933-). To summarise his entry, it says he was a wing half and an able utility player, played 53 league games in 9 years prior to joining Brentford in 1929. Released in May 1932, joined Walsall and then joined Yeovil. Joyce 2012 lists two Harold Salts, one an outside left playing for Ravensdale and Port Vale only and a second Harold Salt, half back, born Sheffield 20 November 1899, with the clubs Ecclesfield United, Brighton & Hove Albion (1921), Mexborough, Peterborough & Fletton United, Queens Park Rangers (1926), Grays Thurrock, Crystal Palce (1927-1928), Brentford (1929-1932), Walsall, Yeovil & Petters United, Tunbridge Wells Rangers. Joyce lists a players' years according to their first/last league appearances. Too tired right now to trawl through the history, but if I made a gaffe I apologise! Beatpoet (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's what I know about Harold Salt that played for Brentford FC.

SALT, Harold Left Half or Centre Half - Brentford FC 1929-32 Ht; 5ft 9in. Wt; 11st 7lb. Born; Ecclesfield, near Sheffield. Died;

CAREER: County boys/ Sheffield Wednesday March 1917 (war-time guest)/ Thorncliffe United Sep 1919/ Ecclesfield United/ Brighton & Hove Albion June 1920/ Mexborough F.C. cs 1922/ Peterborough & Fletton United cs 1923/ Queens Park Rangers 10 May 1926/ Grays Thurrock Sep 1927/ Crystal Palace 18 Jan 1928/ BRENTFORD 11 May 1929/ Walsall 18 May 1932.

As far as I can see, there's no connection to Port Vale FC at all with this Harold Salt. I hope this helps?--Thebees1889 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, excellent work guys. I guess we can conclude then that in all probability they are separate people?--Echetus Xe 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

EFS Player

Hi,

In 2016/17 Hibernian will compete in the Scottish Championship, Challenge Cup, Europa League, League Cup & Scottish Cup and possibly play offs. The problem is EFS player only takes 4 competitions. Is there a way of expanding this to allow it to handle 5 competitions. I wouldn't of thought five to be overly uncommon.Blethering Scot 18:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No.	Pos	Nat	Player	Total		Championship		Other		Europa League		League Cup		Scottish Cup
No.	Pos	Nat	Player	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
1	GK	ENG	Mark Oxley	0	0	0+0	0	0+0	0	0+0	0	0+0	0	0+0	0

Source: ^{[citation needed]}

There's Template:Efs 2 player to fix that. However, it doesn't fit with Template:Efs start, you'll have to change the header to Template:Efs 2 start as well. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:MYS77 Thanks for the push in the correct direction. Im a bit confused with EFS 2. Would you be willing to take a look at 2016–17 Hibernian F.C. season to see where I'm going horribly wrong.Blethering Scot 19:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Blethering Scot: Sorry man, I meant to tell you about Template:Efs player2, not this one. My bad. I've already fixed the page, cheers. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Could not work that out at all.Blethering Scot 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yannick Ferreira Carrasco

Hi, please hurry up and protect Yannick Ferreira Carrasco. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A Champions League runners-up medal is an honour. This has been discussed numerous times.--Echetus Xe 13:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

National team infobox order mixup?

If you go to the Philippines national football team page you will see that the "Sub-confederation" comes before the actual "Confederation" the team is in, shouldn't it be the opposite since the AFC is the ruling organization over ASEAN's football confederation? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, should be switched. -Koppapa (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How would I go about that? I am not sure how to modify infobox templates. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Another query regarding seaons articles crossover

As I'm preparing the 2015–16 in Israeli football article, I've taken a look at the 2014–15 in Israeli football article and noticed that the tables for the national team participation in the Euro 2016 qualifying and the U-21 participation in the 2017 European U-21 qualifying are wrong for the article, as the tables present the current standings (which means - the table at the time of reading the article), rather the table at the end of the season, since the tables shown from their template (template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group B) which include matches played in the following season. Surely, for the season article the tables should show the standings at the end of the season? --Eranrabl (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying makes sense. I would suggest to just go into Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group B history, grab this diff from June 2015, hit edit and copy the table from that point in time into the article. Calistemon (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Piping

A simple question - is there any good reason that we habitually pipe links for football teams? I'm thinking of Tottenham Hotspur, Maidstone United, Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao, Deportivo de La Coruña or any other number of team names which will clearly redirect to the team article. I'm not asking for articles to be moved (I see the value in the consistency of always including the relevant 'F.C.' etc), but rather what I'm questioning is the time taken in writing [[Tottenham Hotspur|Tottenham Hotspur F.C.]] when [[Tottenham Hotspur]] will clearly do? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it's good practice to use direct links rather than rely on redirects. Off the top of my head, a few reasons for this are:

Redirects being retargeted by vandals will be spotted less quickly because fewer people have them on their watchlist.
Redirects are sometimes turned into DAB pages, which leaves a large number of links pointing at the wrong page.
If an article is moved, this creates double redirects from multiple articles.

Plus a good number of editors find redirects irritating. I really don't see how taking an extra five seconds or so to do it properly is a problem. Number 5 7 10:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Or... Redirects are usually fine, so long as they work. The relevant guideline says so: "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles." Particularly in prose, where it's rather easier for an editor to cope with

[[Brighton & Hove Albion]]'s [[left back]] scored in [[extra time]]

than

[[Brighton & Hove Albion F.C.|Brighton & Hove Albion]]'s [[defender (association football)#Full-back|left back]] scored in [[overtime (sports)|extra time]]

in the editing window.

Personally, I'll use a redirect in prose where it's easier, so long as it's likely to remain working; I do tend to pipe something like [[Templatia City F.C.|Templatia City]], where the football club might realistically not remain the primary topic for Templatia City. <rant alert> What drives me spare is when people go round "fixing" working redirects when the guideline says "Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental", and continue to do so even after being advised that following the guideline would actually save themselves work... </rant over> cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, what we often have at footy is also the overlinking problem. There is an habbit to link every single mention of one club everywhere in one article often ending in a situation where one club can be linked 5-6 times in it. The ideal situation would be to have just one link (piped correctly if piped) and then the other mentions would be just writen normally without linking. FkpCascais (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, cheers all! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Kosovar footballer with Albanian passport

Is that any source Kosovar of Albanian ethnicity had an automatic rights to Albanian citizenship, or just due to that also had parent or ancestry born within modern border of Albania, or they naturalized as a refugee in Albania after few year of residency ? It look silly to claim every Kosovar was eligible to represent Albania, as stated in FIFA eligibility rules. it is not quite certain why Etrit Berisha, Samir Ujkani and Lorik Cana was eligible but activate the clause of parent and grandparent POB. Matthew_hk t c 09:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

an interesting article Matthew_hk t c 09:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Most Kosovars are ethnic Albanians of which most have parents/grand parents/grand grand parents that came from Albania. Since there is a dispute between Serbia, who had Kosovo as province, and local ethnic Albanians (now called Kosovars) which want independence, most Kosovars choose not to represent the country they were born in, Serbia, but rather the country of their ancestors, Albania.

Now that Kosovo became accepted at FIFA and UEFA perhaps that trend will change and they will start playing for Kosovo. FkpCascais (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The article i cited wrote Kosovar people did not automatically receive Albanian passport, due to Albanian are visa free to EU, if granting all ethnic Albanian in Kosovo with Albanian passport, that would be a problem to EU. In theory if someone born in Kosovo with ancestors all born in modern border of Kosovo, he cannot claim Albanian passport by ancestry but residency in Albania and knowledge of Albanian language, or granting by the president of Albania in case by case basis, such as sport merit .

I just want to point out that it seem not all Kosovar people (ethnic Albanian) would have Albanian citizenship automatically, just the case of Canadian, US, UK, Australian and New Zealander. It would cause edit war to alleged every Kosovar are Albanian citizen. Matthew_hk t c 09:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mahdi Abdul-Zahra

Could an Admin please delete Mahdi Abdul-Zahra under G4. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Done. Number 5 7 20:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability of individual matches

I thought there was a guideline on the notability of individual soccer matches, but I can't find the page for it. There is the generic WP:SPORTSEVENT, which seems to be applicable in this case.

There are a number of articles on English Football League Two play-off Finals (and lower level finals), from the recent 2016 Football League Two play-off Final to things like 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final, 1987 Football League Fourth Division play-off Final and 1996 Football League Third Division play-off Final. Basically, all 72 pages in Category:Football League play-off Finals. These seem to fall below the threshold for individual games. Opinions? Fram (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Playoff finals (particularly the Championship playoff) are in themselves notable. The Championship playoff final is routinely described as "the richest game in football", i.e. it is of more economic importance than even a Champions League final. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

OK for the championship final, what about the lower levels? Going from Level 3 to Level 2 obviously has some economic importance, but nothing compared to going to the Premier League. Fram (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:GNG apply? If there are sufficient third-party sources, what's wrong with having articles on them? – Pee Jay 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NTEMP/WP:NOTNEWS. There are sufficient sources for every game in the Premier League (and every top league in, let's say the 20 most important European competetions), but they all come over a very short period. Few games will receive significant attention apart from the short burst right before and after the game. Fram (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes - the notbality guidelines do say that sources have to be more than routine news coverage, so sources have to go beyond that. Note that the list at WP:SPORTSEVENTS states that "Some games or series are inherently notable, including but not limited to the following" (my emphasis). The list there is not intended to be exhaustive, so it's probably at our discretion to decide whether or not these games are inherently notable. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The play-off finals in the English league system are more akin to cup finals. There are trophies and medals awarded to the winners and the matches are played at the national stadium. I think this makes them more notable (and more extensively covered) than routine league games. Other leagues (e.g. Scotland, Germany) have two-legged playoff finals, where the matches played at each team's home ground and no trophies or medals are awarded. This makes them feel more like part of the league season. We don't normally have separate articles for these playoffs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a fake distinction to me. The basic importance of the game isn't changed because a medal is awarded. Note that while e.g. the League 2 game is usually played at Wembley, the stadium was hardly sold out (the attendance was only 14000 in 2014 and 11000 in 2011). We dont have separate articles for e.g. the final of a tennis tournament (apart from the Grand Slams), even though there as well trophies are awarded and the main court is used. So I still don't see why the final of a lower league season is more notable than e.g. the yearly Manchester derby in the Premier League or El Clásico in Spain, for which we don't have separate articles per match. Fram (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well those games are bigger in terms of attendance, but part of a regular season; the play-offs have a bigger notability and impact because they change the league in which someone has played.

I'm more persuaded by the comparison to Grand Slam finals, though we shouldn't based ourselves too much on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Fundamentally, the content of these articles could easily be incorporated into the relevant league season, certainly for League One and League Two. I'd be more open to keeping the Championship final Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just boldly redirected 1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final, which contained teamsheets, lots of untidy coloured formatting, and little else, to a paragraph at 1987–88 Football League#Second Division play-offs. Wonder how long it'll last. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems to have worked, perhaps we need to do the same with all 2nd division and lower matches (assuming they don't have an added reason for individual notability, like some disaster or being the farewell match of some major football star). Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sponsor names on stadiums

A new discussion about stadiums and sponsor names at a move request. Please comment on Talk:Britannia Stadium#Requested move 2 June 2016. Qed237 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The requested move is Britannia Stadium to "Bet365 Stadium". Qed237 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Page ratings (in talk pages)

Could you please check the edits by 2001:8A0:F23E:1201:7051:CEFE:E581:7F17 (talk · contribs)? This is a stub but this is not? How come? SLBedit (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I must say that it looks weird that their only edits are assessing articles and they have assessed a lot since first edit on 28 May. Qed237 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I have found two more IPs doing the same. On 22 May 2001:8A0:F23E:1201:F832:DD91:C549:E5BF (talk · contribs), on 29 May 2001:8A0:F23E:1201:1973:E6E5:AC3A:B75E (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertice and I dont assess articles, but someone must take a look at this and see if the assessments are good or if we perhaps even need to request a rangeblock. Qed237 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 squads

One editor disagrees with how we display clubs at UEFA Euro 2016 squads. According to the article lead The club listed is the club for which the player last played a competitive match prior to the tournament, (same as other and previous tournaments) while User:Centaur271188 wants to follow UEFA. Please advice at article talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not just an issue for the UEFA Euro 2016 squads article but it also continues with discrepancies and inconsistencies in the National Team articles. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Tottenham and stadium

Hi, could someone take a look at 2016–17 Premier League. An editor insists that Tottenham will play all matchers on Wembley, based on this announcement. My understanding however is that they will only play Champions League on Wembley this season. Am I wrong? Qed237 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The source says they'll be playing Premier League matches at Wembley in 2017/8, but not 2016/7. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems quite clear. They'll be playing Champions League matches at Wembley in 2016/17 because White Hart Lane won't meet UEFA requirements due to construction work, with an option of playing all domestic home games there in 2017/18 as they will then have to vacate White Hart Lane to complete the the new stadium. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, just as I thought. Messages like this made me think so I wanted to be sure. Qed237 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've put the page on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Facebook Football Awards

Is Facebook Football Awards notable? I doubt it, but I am not sure. Qed237 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That was my gut instinct too. but there is some reporting for it from 'respected' media outlets. so may just need some more diverse referencing (I found the following four with ease)

=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is, in fact, notable, the article definitely requires some work. I assume it's a result of some poll on Facebook but there's next to no information given about that. -Gopherbashi (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Honours

Are titles won as an assistant manager really needed to be included at the honours section? See Zidane... Some articles would be getting a lot bigger. Kante4 (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)—

Not generally, Peter Taylor was almost a co-manager with Brian Clough so their achievements should be included in his article. Generally assistant role's shouldn't be included in the infobox either but that seems to be flaunted quite a bit too.--Echetus Xe 13:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, overkill. What comes next, honours for goalkeeping/fitness coaches? --Be Quiet AL (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Campeonato Brasileiro Série C - a WP:FPL?

I have a question: is Campeonato Brasileiro Série C a fully professional league? I've raised this question in the past back at WT:FPL but there were little answers/too much fighting/poor evidences.

Down to the facts: in the page 6/Chapter III of the tournament's regulation, called DA CONDIÇÃO DE JOGO DOS ATLETAS (Fitness Condition of Athletes), it says:

* Art. 5º - Somente poderão participar do Campeonato os atletas que tenham sido registrados na DRT e cujos nomes constem do BID publicado até o último dia útil que anteceder a cada partida. Parágrafo único - Contratos de novos atletas para utilização no Campeonato poderão ser registrados até o dia 29/09/2016. (Art 5th - Only the athletes who were registered in DRT¹ and whose names appear in BID² published until the last day before each match can play in the championship. Sole paragraph - Contracts of new athletes to be utilized in the championship can only be registered until 29 September 2016.)
Art. 6º - Todas as referências ao BID aqui expressas devem considerar o que prevê o Capítulo IV do RGC e o RNRTAF – Regulamento Nacional de Registro e Transferência de Atletas de Futebol. (Art 6th - All references to BID here expressed must consider what provides the Chapter IV of RCG³ and RNRTAF - National Regulation of Registration and Transfers of Football Athletes.)

¹ DRT = Diretoria de Registro e Transferência (Registration and Transfers Board), which register the players and transfer/assign them to their related clubs);

² BID = Boletim Informativo Diário (Dailly Newsletter), which contains a resumée of the contract registrations with a daily filter;

³ RGC = Regulamento Geral das Competições (General Regulation of Competitions), which is a 'major regulation' to be referred in all other regulations.

If we take a look at the RGC, page 26 (Chapter IV, as referred in Série C's regulation), it says:

* Art. 33 - Somente poderão participar das competições os atletas profissionais que tenham seu Contrato Especial de Trabalho Desportivo devidamente registrado nas respectivas federações; e atletas não profissionais devidamente registrados também em suas respectivas federações. (Art 33rd - Only the athletes who have their Special Playing Contract properly registered in their respective federations can play in the competitions; and non-professional athletes properly registered also in their respective federations.)
§ 2º - Somente poderão registrar contratos profissionais aqueles clubes que participam de competições profissionais coordenadas pela CBF ou em competições profissionais de âmbito estadual. (§ 2nd - Only clubs who play in professional competitions coordenated by CBF or in professional state league competitions can register professional contracts.)

Série C is clearly considered a professional league, and the same can be applied to Série D (regulation here). All of those regulations basically mean: if a team play in a professional competition (all competitions organized by CBF are professional), the club can register a professional contract. If a player actually has a professional contract, in a professional club, playing in a professional league, the league should be included in WP:FPL, right?

I've raised this again also because Campeonato Paulista and Campeonato Mineiro are both considered FPLs (correctly), even despite they're technically below Série C in the pyramid of Brazilian football (Série A > Série B > Série C > Série D > State Leagues).

Can someone give an input of the subject here? I'd be very thankful. MYS 77 ^✉ 04:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Number 57, FkpCascais, Gsfelipe94, Struway2, Be Quiet AL: what do you guys think about it? Cheers, MYS77 ^✉ 17:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Two questions: Firstly, is it the case that clubs can register professional contracts with players, or that they must? If it's only "can", then it doesn't mean they do. Secondly, how much are these professional contracts valued at? If it only means payment of some kind, then it could be the case that these are really semi-pro players. Number 57 17:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  - The Art. 33 in translation says: "It can only pay in the competitions the professional players that have the Special Contract of Sports Labour registered in their respective federations; plus non professional athletes which are registered in their respective federations."
  - This would basically mean that it is a semi-professional league since both type of players can play, professional and non-professional. The professional leagues are the ones that in that article say that only professional players can play. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    - @Number 57: In Série C and Série D, they must. All of the players in Série C are full-time footballers, and some of them have appeared in top level leagues of Brazil and even Europe. @FkpCascais: The amend says that only professional players can play in professional competitions organized by CBF. Série C is a professional competition organized by CBF. I'd say it is a professional leagues, as Série D is too. MYS77 ^✉ 17:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
      - It doesnt say only CBF but the players can be registered in their respective federations (the regional ones) as well. Clearly says non-professinal players can play, thus it is clearly not a fully professional league. This is a good exemple of semi-professional league. FkpCascais (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
        @FkpCascais: I think you didn't get the point. The part which mentions "non-professional players" is related to state league football (i.e. Campeonato Alagoano and those types of competitions). I thought you were Brazilian, that's why I mentioned you, mate. But Série C is as professional as Série A and B, although it was founded 11 years after the other two. Even those state leagues contain the word "professional" in their regulations. MYS 77 ^✉ 19:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
        I did understood exactly right, it is the state leagues wich are refered there, and as far as we know, most of them are not fully professional except two, and, preciselly because of that, article 33 makes reference to them, so the non professional players registered by the clubs in the state championships could play in the Serie C and D too. In conclusion, article 33 makes it clear non-professional players can play as well, and there is nothing more clear than that to make a call that the league is not fully-professional. FkpCascais (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
        
        To say it in a very simple way, what article 33 says is that the clubs can use in the Serie C and D the same players thay use in the state championships. We know that ammong the 26 state championships, only two are fully professional (Paulista A1 and Mineiro), so it clearly indicates article 33 is made in a way for clubs to use the same players they use in the state championships, including the non-professionals. A fully professional league doesn't allow this. This is exactly the difference between a fully and semi professional league. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Série A all the way to Série D are clearly professional, no doubt about that. State leagues are also in that group. The "§ 2nd" clearly states that the league is professional and requires a proper registration. If a player does not want to be a full-professional (meaning in that case he plays football but also has other jobs - something common with very small clubs where players can't live by playing just a few matches for a couple of months), he can still play in the league pending registration. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese well enough to understand all the nuances, so I might be misinterpreting, but article 33 seems to say that players have to be registered, but they don't have to be professional. And if it is indeed common with small clubs that players can't make a living by playing football in that league, as Gsfelipe94 writes above, then it isn't "fully professional" within the WP:FPL definition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Amateur players are allowed to be registered to play in both Série C and Série D. See CBF súmulas (match docket) for:

Guaratinguetá v Mogi Mirim (2016 Série C Round 3) [7] - Note player 14 Leonardo for Guaratinguetá has A in the column P/A (Profissional/Amador)
Palmas v Ríver (2015 Série D Round 1) [8] - Note player 21 Italo Alves for Palmas as above.

Sorry to be so late to this discussion. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Awards templates

Hi all, just a minor query. In what order should we place awards templates on biographies? I'm thinking alphabetical as it's pretty clear-cut, Mick Channon being one example. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Toni Martínez

Notable? Isn't the third tier in Spain just reserves etc and not a pro-league? Seems little more than a youth team player?--Egghead06 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:NFOOTY. The Spanish third tier is a normal league, not just reserve teams, but it isn't fully professional. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we have duplicate records lists for clubs?

The bigger football clubs generally have a 'List of ABC FC records and statistics' page that also includes an honours section. They also have an honours section on the main club page itself. This doesn't cause duplication when the list page is the comprehensive one and the main club page is the summary one, like with Bayern Munich, Barcelona, and Real Madrid. However, when the Arsenal F.C.#Honours section started growing, there was a lot of fight across the talk pages about whether friendlies and other smaller honours belonged on the club page, and Koncorde (talk · contribs) and admin Number 57 (talk · contribs) put their feet down and said nothing should be removed from the club honours section, even if it was maintained in the list of records page. Number 57 said 'the idea that only honours listed by the FA or intermational organisations [should be listed] is, quite frankly, bonkers.' As a result, we have two almost entirely duplicated lists on the club page and list of records page. Now, admin The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and bureaucrat/oversighter Dweller (talk · contribs) have come in and said the club page looks ridiculous, and The Rambling Man has put a fancruft tag on part of the section. Can we come to some sort of consensus on this? It would be nice to get the tag off a featured article as quick as possible. Madshurtie (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

For an idea of the opinions so far, the list of people who have previously suggested stuff should be moved from the club page includes me, Hashim-afc (talk · contribs), Sport and politics (talk · contribs), Davefelmer (talk · contribs), PerelmanMorales (talk · contribs) (blocked sockpuppet), Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), and Dweller (talk · contribs). People who have opposed any offloading include Qed237 (talk · contribs), Koncorde (talk · contribs), and Number 57 (talk · contribs). Sorry if I've missed/miscategorized anyone. Madshurtie (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No reason to remove cited content. The issue with the approach some have taken is to remove stuff that they personally dislike because of their own vested interests. Whether all tournaments qualify as "honours" to be included in an article is open to debate, but removing them because someone else created another article or just because you don't like them is not a justification. In particular DaveFelmer was just blanking sections because stuff was "regional", even if at the time a regional trophy was all that existed.

On the same note, as a few people pointed out at the time - some clubs are only eligible for some competitions so their "honours" may not meet any subjective criteria applied to Arsenal or Bayern.

As it stands, the cruft is on the lists page in most cases, which is fine. Whereas honours are integral to a club, and have no reason to be diminished.

To return to original point - friendly tournaments are open to discussion, as informal pretty season invitationals. However at the same time, some prestigious events in football history started as "Friendlies" and are no less historically relevant. Texaco cups...less so. Koncorde (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say: remove friendly honours except if they are extremely important to the club history (may be subjective) and keep friendly honours in the other article if they are notable. SLBedit (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quick note, regardless of the content issue here, neither my position as an admin nor Dweller's position as an admin/'crat/oversighter has any bearing whatsoever on our opinions as editors. I think I'm right in saying that neither Dweller or I believe that the inclusion of such a plethora of pathetic non-notable trophies does the Arsenal F.C. page any favours. Indeed, it diminishes the higher quality wins as they are all represented in equal standing. If absolutely necessary, create a content fork to include all such pathetic trophies, and there an explanation as to the notability and relevance of each and every tinpot can be explained. That would be far preferable to bloating the half-decent Arsenal article with such detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

On that quick note, I'm sorry for bringing up your status, I was just trying to indicate this wasn't just a few more inexperienced editors rehashing an old discussion, instead we had disagreement between some far more experienced and competent editors. Forget I mentioned it. :-( Madshurtie (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Right now the honours section in Arsenal F.C. looks ridiculous because of "Other honours". SLBedit (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

What is a "pathetic trophy"? Koncorde (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's start with those that are considered so non-notable that they don't have articles. Next we'll move onto pre-season friendly tournament trophies and "memorial" cups. That should remove about half the detritus on the Arsenal page. This isn't some kind of a "how big is your dick" competition. If Arsenal themselves don't give a tinker's cuss about 90% of the "honours" that are listed on Wikipedia, why should we? As I said, if all these pathetic cups need to be covered, create a fork and explain, with references, why each and every trophy should be listed, perhaps with some background on the history of each of the non-notable competitions and perhaps with some indication as to the type of contest, the number of entrants, the quality of the entrants, the finals etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that for a club of Arsenal's size, friendly/exhibition trophies should be on the List of page only, with the main article focusing on top tier & continental trophies. I'd compare to tennis articles: Roger Federer#Career statistics lists only Grand Slam titles and Roger Federer career statistics has Challenger, Junior and Exhibition level trophies. I think that this sets a good precedent that we could follow. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Bingo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Where does that leave all the competitions that are not pre-season/memorial, nor top tier/continental? For instance, the London Senior Cup and London Challenge Cup? Number 5 7 19:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In the same boat for me. Do Arsenal list them on their honours page? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Why does it matter what Arsenal lists on their honours page? Wikipedia is not the same as Arsenal.com. Tottenham lists friendly cups on their website in an 'other honours' section. Does that mean Wikipedia should list friendly cups on the Tottenham article only and not the Arsenal article? No. (I agree with your overall point by the way of removing the friendly cups, but not with comparing Wikipedia with the Arsenal website; that logic is totally flawed.) Hashim-afc (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wherever possible, this website should be reporting what reliable sources say, rather than inventing our own criteria. However, as has been noted in many previous 'honours' debates, our problem is that different sources differ on what they list. However, there aren't so many clubs/articles/honours that we can't judge this on a case by case basis. The Brazilian regional leagues are more important than the county cups in England. Tottenham Hotspur's 1900 Southern League win, from when it was the 2nd or 3rd highest quality competition in England, is generically much more notable than Poole Town's 2016 win of the same competition, when it's ~the 10thm though for each club individually the Southern League win is probably more important for Poole than Spurs. Club honours pages can make sense to draw from but there's also reasonable negotiation on each club's pages to follow. What's certain is that the current Arsenal page is far too excessive. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The logic is not "totally flawed" in any way at all. If the club that has won these so-called honours doesn't recognise them, and Wikipedia doesn't recognise them (as they are non-notable), they simply should be expunged. Or driven into a fork where their significance and context can be adequately explained, as I mentioned above. If you don't understand what I'm saying, in summary: push all the minor honours into a "List of Arsenal honours" or similar. So normal readers who are interested in things like the Champions League wins etc, don't wade through 1910s friendly cups. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You sure normal readers of an encyclopedia wouldn't be interested in anything that happened more than five minutes ago? Or more obscure than the Champions League? Hey ho... Struway2 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No, not at all, and that's why I'm suggesting that these "wins" are moved to an appropriate fork and given the breadth of coverage they deserve. I chanced upon the London Senior Cup article after Number 57 had remarked on it. It's crap. And has no real context. Why not make this a real solution, why not stick with the honours that Arsenal and mainstream RS consider to be Arsenal honours, and then actually do some work to describe to our readers why these minor trophies actually count for anything? And I haven't checked, but I'm guessing that Arsenal are including their 1931 league win in their honours, so I'm not convinced about the five-minute argument you're suggesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I exaggerate for effect, as do you. And all Senior Cup articles are crap. It's a function of Senior Cups not having been important to big clubs since the 1910s, and of prose being far more difficult to write than lists and horribly formatted bullet-points, and of all County FA websites having redesigned out any historical content. The Arsenal honours shouldn't include endless lists of ancient or modern pre-season friendlies, and what's included should depend on reliable (preferably independent) sources. But if there are competitions that modern sources ignore because they're old and scary and not trending on social media but were significant at the time, they shouldn't be shunted out of the main article, the prose should be in that main article to inform the normal reader why they're there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And I would agree with you wholesale if it were not for the fact that it generates sections of club articles which are utterly bloated with historical (not historic) minor trophies. Moving them to a fork where appropriate (e.g. for Arsenal) seems perfectly logical and legitimate. I am still waiting for someone to give me feedback on the idea that these minor wins should also come with some context, i.e. was it a first-team win, was it a one-off match or a multi-match tournament, etc etc etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree that "minor" wins should have context. Thank you for suggesting it. I shall, forthwith (or tomorrow morning, anyway), move the hidden note about the 1905 Birmingham Senior Cup in Birmingham City F.C.#Honours to visible and add a bit to it. Likewise the wartime league win. But leave the other hidden note, about the section being for competitive honours and not pre-season tournaments or friendly matches, in place. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, I agree with you that we should move the minor honours onto the other page. But I disagree with using what the club's official website says. Tottenham's official website recognises and lists all of their friendly cups, that doesn't mean we should include them on Wikipedia for Tottenham and not Arsenal which is what you imply. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the honours section on the Arsenal F.C. page to what I think it should look like. What do you guys think of it now? Hashim-afc (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What is there now is pretty much exactly what I would hope to see. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In line with Struway's comments above, I think the article is definitely the poorer for the removal of cups that were of higher importance in the past (e.g. the London cups). I don't mind the removal of the pre-season friendly cups, but proper competitions should have been retained. This just looks like Premier League-era dumbing down to me. Number 5 7 21:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should have given people a bit more time to add their thoughts before actually changing it again, even if this arrangement is almost exactly what I prefer. Of course, the additional trophies were added without consensus in the first place, so what the default state should be is unclear to me. Madshurtie (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I think it's fair to say that, while the London cups (and the wartime leagues, and others) have historical importance and were important in their time, these competitions were much more limited and less competitive, which is why they aren't as celebrated as the ones organized by national and international bodies. Football League title and FA Cups go back over a century, so I don't agree this is Premier League-era dumbing down. Madshurtie (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If they were important in their time, then they are still relevant today as we don't do WP:RECENTISM. We're an encylopedia not a daily newspaper or magazine. Number 5 7 21:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

That's why they can go into the honours fork, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate. It might be for all the pre-season nonsense, but not proper competitions. Number 5 7 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You have to draw the line somewhere, forks already exist for honours and managers and seasons etc. The main article should not be overly detailed in any one aspect, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree the line has to be drawn somewhere, but we obviously disagree on where that line should be. Let's see what other editors think. Number 5 7 22:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If we agree we should split out, at least we are forming consensus on something! Where the line should be is very important. I suggested a few others last time. Madshurtie (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

They were important in their time because they were all that was available. This doesn't mean they are as important for all time. Modern friendlies get widespread media coverage because they are what is going on, not because newspapers consider them as important as league matches. Madshurtie (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that unless the previous cups have articles and those articles actually explain the context of each win, they should be removed. I'm not for censoring club's honours, but honestly, unless someone can actually read about why the 1941 City of Edinburgh Cup was worthy of inclusion, I have no idea why it's there. Who did they play? Why did they play it? Was it a 31-match tournament or was it just a one-off in a field somewhere? Come on, we have forks for all the things that aren't really covered in the main article, you all know that. As for "cups that were of higher importance", where is that defined? I'm not trying to be a shithead but honestly, one man's Simod Cup is another man's European Cup. As an encyclopedia, we should be dealing with this appropriately as pertaining to each club. Arsenal have won a significant number of honours, just as they have had significant numbers of managers and played for a significant number of seasons. We don't and shouldn't ever try to cover that in the main article. We already have an Arsenal honours article. What's the issue? If someone wants to claim that certain war-time trophies are somehow more "significant" than other local London cups, fine, but don't bloat the main AFC page with these trivial wins. Or at least discuss them individually to determine what's trivial and what's not. Record winners of the "Caltex Cup"? Really? Well knock me down with a feather. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be basing things on whether the cups have existing articles, since WP:NOTFINISHED. New research could be discovered that makes a previously overlooked cup notable, say. Madshurtie (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we're saying delete the cup, just move it to the honours list. And if you're trying to argue not finished, each of these really should be red linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you initially didn't seem to want them at all (or at least without in-line explanation), so was just making sure. Wikipedia does include things within articles that aren't notable enough for a page of their own, no? Madshurtie (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Per this; "I'm not trying to be a shithead but honestly, one man's Simod Cup is another man's European Cup. As an encyclopedia, we should be dealing with this appropriately as pertaining to each club." who decides what, when, where? Also, with regards to removing the "City of Edinburgh Cup" - if you do not know of its significance, this does not mean that it is not significant. Per WP:NOTFINISHED that is the weakest and most spurious reason to remove content (it was a Wartime competition for the Scottish War Memorial Fund, between Arsenal and Hearts btw, finishing 1-0 to Arsenal, Alf Kirchen scoring the only goal). Koncorde (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the discussion has progressed significantly since your question, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm....since when has it been standard to list (especially a club like Arsenal, who has won many titles) being a league runner-up? You don't get medals for coming second in the Premier League...should be removed. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's in the club template, and it was the 2010 FA review form of the Arsenal page until someone removed them without discussion in 2012. See the club talk page. This is, of course, a separate issue. Madshurtie (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: @Number 57: @Koncorde: What does everyone think about creating a category for the London Football Association and moving it to the club page? It would mean we'd only be adding about three tournaments to the club page (London Senior Cup, London Charity Cup, London Challenge Cup), and, as Struway2 (talk · contribs) says in his Birmingham City edit, County Cups were among the most important tournaments in their day. It would be an objective category and might prove a decent attempt at consensus? Madshurtie (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Hashim-afc (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and done it anyway. Would still be interested to hear your views though. Madshurtie (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a definite improvement. I still think it could be cut down significantly by removing the heading and the runners-up (Arsenal only have two European honours for instance). If the headings are really deemed to be needed (not sure how), then the county ones could be combined into County FAs or something. Number 5 7 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it becomes much less readable without the headings. They also make it clearer what is being excluded from the page. After spotting the Kent Senior Cup, I would have combined them under a County Football Associations heading, but Hashim had already changed it; now I'm pretty indifferent. I'm also indifferent on removing runners-up. If people want to add to that discussion on the talk page, I'd like to hear more. Madshurtie (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thiago Alcântara, Thiago (Footballer, 1993) or Thiago (Footballer)?

Can someone with more knowledge about page moves have a look at these articles? The article Thiago Alcântara is now redirected to Thiago (Footballer, 1993) which is empty and the content seems to be at Thiago (Footballer). I'm not sure that Thiago (Footballer) is the correct name either. --Jaellee (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the editor Wolfinho6 was doing, he seemed to move the article twice, leaving a blank page. He also left a redirect in the Wikipedia namespace, which probably should be deleted. I fixed the redirects and put the word "footballer" in lowercase, but maybe the article title should be discussed? It seems to me he is more often referred to simply as Thiago, so Thiago (footballer) might be best. Also, is it "Alcântara" or "Alcántara"? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the name should be. FC Bayern uses Thiago, his website, UEFA.com and FIFA.com use Thiago Alcántara. --Jaellee (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Given two ways of addressing him footballwise are shown by the sources (Thiago and Thiago Alcântara), I feel the previous title "Thiago Alcântara" was quite correct. But NEVER "Alcántara", that's the Spanish form of his last name. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Names like Thiago (footballer) should be reserved for when the player is rarely ever named with a surname, like how Portugal's Éder is never referred to as "Éder Lopes" to my understanding. "Thiago Alcântara" is not an obscure way of naming him at all, see [9] [10] [11]. Nobody would scratch their head at seeing "Thiago Alcântara" as a title in the same way as if "Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro" were a title. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree it should be Thiago Alcântara as he's reasonably often known as that. Looks like it needs an admin to move it back to there though. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Is â or á used in his name? There are sources for each of the variants. --Jaellee (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read above, fellow user, "â" is the correct form, "á" is a Spanish approach. Unless he has legally changed his surname, it is 100% wrong. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what is correct from a language point of view, but both UEFA and FIFA use á and he plays for Spain, so a Spanish name might not be so far off. --Jaellee (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

please find an admin to revert to Thiago Alcântara first. certainly a controversial move to Thiago (footballer), as not only one notable Thiago = Tiago . Matthew_hk t c 00:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jaellee: Actually, the FIFA link you posted is just a photo gallery. Thiago's official FIFA profile just uses the name Thiago, which is also listed as his "FIFA display name" in many official FIFA documents (Examples: [12], [13], [14], [15]). Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Please would someone put the content back to Thiago Alcântara where it came from. We can discuss if a move is needed once the mess is fixed. Thanks in advance, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Eric Bertrand Bailly

It's the start of the silly season... could an Admin please revert & protect Eric Bertrand Bailly and probably move protect too. It was Eric Bailly before it was moved. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Other articles needs protection to, such as Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Ousmane Dembélé and Mats Hummels. Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ping @Mattythewhite: As I see you are online now... JMHamo (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Received this notification just as I went on his page after reading the BBC report about him... semi-protected and moved. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo trigamme

Please comment on Talk:2016–17 UEFA Champions League#Kosovo. There is a dispute if we should follow FIFA who uses KVX or IOC (International Olympic Committee) who uses KOS. Qed237 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sunday cups

The national FA Sunday Cup is probably notable, but the Birmingham Sunday Challenge Cup surely isn't........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham Sunday Challenge Cup is at AfD now... JMHamo (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The template on that page should probably be deleted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Control of the lower levels of the English Football Pyramid

I am aware that all levels of the pyramid down to Level 11 / Step 7 come under the jurisdiction The Football Association. But who, if anyone, controls Level 12 and below?

The articles for Bristol and District Football League and Bristol and Avon Association Football League each say that Bristol and Avon is a feeder for Bristol and District. Bristol and District is shown on the Pyramid at level 14 and below, with Bristol and Avon at level 21. With Bristol and District condensing from seven small divisions in 2014–15 to six slightly larger division for 2015–16, this leaves a gap (level 20) between the two leagues, and logically this gap should be filled by raising Bristol and Avon to level 20. Is there some higher authority which controls levels at this depth? Or do we just get on and change them ourselves? Drawoh46 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

At that depth, no there isn't. The 'level 20', 'level 21' is unofficial - the presence of citations from fivethirtyeight and others just pushes it beyond original research, but these designations are essentially just people adding levels where promotion and relegation exists in certain regions: I don't think that the pyramid is officially documented beyond level 11/step 7. Really, the table at ]English football league system could be better cited, but in the absence of this, feel free to edit! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response. I'll go ahead and make the necessary changes to put Bristol and Avon Association Football League at level 20. Drawoh46 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, there are no official definitions of any level below 11 and in many cases leagues have been placed where they are simply because one club moved from league X to league Y a year or two ago or based on the site thepyramid.info, which is just some guy's personal site and doesn't seem to have been updated for about four years anyway. There's probably realistically quite a bit of OR on that page........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we be honest with ourselves and scrap the table? Perhaps rearranging the information to remove the levels and to list leagues according to the county FAs with which they're registered might be the best way...? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! As well as scrapping the table below step 7, it would probably also be appropriate to remove references to levels from the articles for all affected leagues, perhaps by simply saying below step 7 or below level 11 in the text and in the infoboxes.Drawoh46 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, with the addition that it would be worth noting to which league a team could gain promotion, as long as it was reliably sourced and not just based on guesswork...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the massive overlink in the table at level 11 and below (We don't need to link every league in every row of the table) and the fact it's just unreadable. I'd replace the rows past level 11 with another table which had (where known)

league name
number of divisions
Feeds into

Most of the articles on the leagues state where they feed into or are fed from. If they're wrong in the articles then someone should be correcting/removing the incorrect information. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, though this is quite a big job - I might quietly work away on this on my sandbox over the summer with a target of being done by the new season. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad you got in with that offer first, Super Nintendo Chalmers :)
And I'm taking it that you're referring to the changes necessary just to the English Football League System article. So, I'm assuming that there's no objection to anyone editing the various league articles, as they arise, to remove any references to levels below level 11 (or by changing them to words such as below level 11). Drawoh46 (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes :) Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

While you're dealing with the long term solution I'm going to deal with the overlink issue which currently exists. There's a lot of wording differences for the same leagues (URGH!) => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Football League Cup now EFL Cup

I haven't seen any discussions of this move, but user Kivo has made both changes. I take it this is not right? Koncorde (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably needs a discussion. Officially, it is the EFL Cup, although some sources still call it League Cup, see [16], while others call it EFL Cup, [17] Joseph2302 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also reverted the move. Personally, I prefer English Football League Cup to EFL Cup as a name. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we usually ignore the "branding" changes, and use the common name for the tournament, but I may be wrong. Koncorde (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NAMECHANGES. That is, the common name in reliable sources for the tournament should be used, with emphasis placed on sources since the change occurred (I'm not familiar enough with this change to know the specifics). I suspect EFL Cup will likely become the common name but only a recent change, will likely become more evident in the future. Macosal (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem

I notice about Football in Tuvalu a problem with "Languages" : German "Fußball bei den Tuvaluspielen" means "Football on Tuvalu games" ; same thing on dutch ; portuguese "Lista de clubes de futebol de Tuvalu" means "List of Tuvaluan football clubs" ; spanish "Juegos de Tuvalu" means "Tuvalu games". So there is a problem. Can someone correct the problem? Cordially.--FCNantes72 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's only really the Portuguese link which works - I've removed the rest. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Would this be the India national team logo?

On social media, the All India Football Federation uses the Indian football team title for their official twitter and facebook accounts and in the description says it is the official page for the India national team and the AIFF. Wouldn't that mean that the logo used by the accounts is not only the AIFF's but also the national team's? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think re-uploading File:India FA.svg under a different name and format as File:Indian football logo.jpeg like ArsenalFan700 has done to try and get around Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg is the way to go about resolving this. The discussion was closed by an admin and the file was removed from the team article by the same admin as a result.~~This seems a bit like WP:GAMING to me and~~There is now the problem of two non-free files of the same logo when there is really only the need for one per WP:NFCC#3. There are ways to challenge the close of any discussion and this is explained at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. To me, this seems equivalent to recreating a previous deleted article, only under a slight different name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC); [Posted edited by Marchjuly to strike out comment about "Gaming" -- 06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)]

Thanks for answering the question. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have sort of gone over this before at User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2015/July#Okay and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#National Team Badges being removed. If you disagree with the way the NFCC is being applied/interpreted in these types of cases, then feel free to discuss at WT:NFCC. If you disagree with an administrator's close, then feel free to discuss it with him or her. Simply re-uploading the same logo (a poorer quality version of it as well) just because you don't like the close is not really the way to go about this in my opinion. Even though the svg file was not deleted as a result of the FFD discussion, reuploading basically the same file apparently to get around that particular close seems very similar in spirit to recreating a previously deleted article per WP:G4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I simply don't have the time nor care enough honestly to go through that. Look, as far as I understand, the reason the logo was removed in the first place was cause it is the logo for the All India Football Federation and the national team is basically a section of the AIFF and the logo is not for the national team. The source I gave, which is a verified page, is from a page for both the national team and the AIFF and thus the logo is for the national team and AIFF. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The file's licensing has been converted to {{PD-textlogo}} by Hashim-afc with this edit. You (=ArsenalFan700) previously mentioned on my user talk that you contacted the All India Football Federation some time last year about the logo. Did they agree to freely license it? If they did, then all that is needed is a declaration of consent from them. FWIW, I don't think this falls below the threshold of originality (TOO) used to determine whether something is too simple for copyright, but that is just my opinion. If it is, then the file can be used just like any other freely licensed file and it would not be subject to WP:NFCC. The file could also then be moved to Commons. Just for reference, however, simply saying the file is too simple for copyright protection does not always mean it is. In cases where things are not so clear cut, Commons tends to delete based upon c:COM:PCP. If India follows UK practice, then the TOO in the UK tends to be really low (much lower than the standard the US follows) which means this would not be PD-textlogo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nationalities in intro

Am I missing something? I admit I have not checked most of the discussions here for a long time, but last time I paid attention, we did not write both nationalities of a player in the introduction, but the last nation represented or none at all (for example "Diego Costa is a footballer who plays as a striker for Chelsea and Spain"), am I correct in this assessment or has the "tide" changed?

In Thiago Motta, my edits (in the light of what I think is the correct approach for football bios) were changed, accompanied by the summary "Please do not revert this edit. It is the standard for football on wikipedia. Any changes will be considered VANDALISM". Made me feel very uncomfortable, and I have already conveyed that to said user, also notifying him of this discussion.

Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct with "Diego Costa is a footballer who plays as a striker for Chelsea and Spain". The fact he was born in Brazil, and his legal nationality, will be dealt with appropriately in usually the following paragraph (if it is particularly notable) such as "after representing Brazil at the U21 World Cup, X switched alliegance to Spain in 2008" and talking elsewhere about "qualified to play for Spain via his maternal grandfather" or something alike. I very much doubt that Thiago Motta is actually Italian, he is likely dual nationality or similar (although you don't necessarily need to be in order to play for another international team). Koncorde (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

For me personally, if you look at how they do it on the Italian footy wiki, which has the best football-related wikipedia in terms of quality and scope, they list players like Amauri and Thiago Motta as 'Brazilian naturalised Italians' which they are. I think it's silly to treat Motta, who was born in Brazil, looks Brazilian, has a Brazilian name and even represented Brazil as "An Italian professional footballer". He holds dual nationality, so I think the best way to treat it would be to state that he's "a Brazilian-born Italian professional footballer". This indicates both his country of birth and the nation he currently represents.Danieletorino2 (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What Koncorde said. I agree that defining him as an "Italian footballer" in the opening sentence is misleading. But the problem arises from trying to define everything in the opening sentence. You'd lose nothing, and gain a lot of clarity, if the opening sentence read "Thiago Motta is a professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for PSG and the Italian national team" and then lower down the lead section, explain that "Motta was born in Brazil of Italian descent; he represented Brazil internationally (which the curent lead doesn't even mention, by the way) before declaring for Italy in 20??". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You need to have standards. If Diego Costa states he is a "Spanish professional" footballer, then make one argument why Thiago Motta is any different. It's the exact same situation. You can't just exclude the nationality for all dual-nationals. I make that case that we state they are 'Brazilian naturalised Italians' as has been done on other wikipedias.Danieletorino2 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Daniele, referring to another article also doing it wrong doesn't help the case of repeating the mistake. I have updated Diego Costas article. Per Struway and numerous discussions in previous instances - even when a player declares for another country other than the one of their birth, this does not mean they are that other legal nationality alone. This is particularly true for countries that have overseas territories (such as Britain and Jamaica) or countries with large ethnic communities (France and Algeria) or countries with large numbers of dual nationality (Italy and Argentina). Arguing in the first 6 words about a players nationality is not required, particularly when it is often the first point of discussion in their article (or in a later paragraph if it is particularly notable). The birth nationality is largely irrelevant that only starts arguments. Koncorde (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, your insistence on edit warring, then on your third revert insisting that the other person is a "vandal" is inappropriate and you need to stop. 3 users have expressed the opinion that you are wrong. This would also extend to the Diego Costa article being wrong. This does not lend weight to your argument, it only highlights that other people are making the same error. Koncorde (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Struway's suggestion here is best. Where a player has two nationalities then mention neither at the very start of the lede, and explain the situation a little further on. Giant Snowman 09:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

None of this has even touched on the fact that the birth country (as in the place where the birth took place) and the birth nationality (as in the nationality held the person at birth) are often not the same, or the issue of defining someone by where they were born when it is perfectly possible for someone to be born somewhere, then leave as a babe in arms and grow up somewhere completely different. Our MOS at WP:OPENPARA explicitly discounts use of the "X-born Y" formula that was once very often seen in our articles, but not so much now. In my view the best solution is to explain the situation further down, as Struway and GiantSnowman suggest, either putting the latest nationality or no nationality in the first sentence based on the circumstances of the individual case. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Should this be the same case with Éder (Italian footballer)? Even though, oddly enough, he is a Brazilian-born Italian footballer, and his article title states he is an Italian footballer. If we're going off the arguments that the nationality shouldn't be stated in the first sentence of dual citizens, then this article title may be a bit misleading as well. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A way around the problem potentially is to go with "Éder is an Italy international footballer" in the first sentence—similarly in the article title one could put "Éder (Italy footballer)" or "Éder (Italy international footballer)"—and, as we've discussed above, fill in the details further along. — Cliftonian (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Guys you are overcomplicating this. "Brazilian-born Italian professional footballer", or "a Brazilian, naturalised-Italian professional footballer" explains it much more clearly and concise than devoting a whole new paragraph in the intro. What is the argument against having this?Danieletorino2 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Because someone like Owen Hargreaves could technically then be a "Canadian-born, Welsh-English professional footballer who represented England"...it's a never ending rabbit hole of arguments over how to define someones nationality, bearing in mind that a nationality is fluid and can change over a period of time. Koncorde (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

How do you know they're "naturalised", Danieletorino2? One can be born an Italian citizen outside Italy and never require naturalisation. And why place the split at birth—there a big different between someone born in Brazil who moves to Italy aged 2 and then becomes a footballer, and someone born, raised and educated in Brazil who becomes a professional footballer and then moves to Italy and switches international allegiance. The wording "Brazilian-born Italian" treats both of these cases exactly the same. Koncorde points out Hargreaves, for example—summing him up as "Canadian-born" is more than a little misleading as all of his family are British. Koncorde is right. All of this is a never-ending rabbit hole. — Cliftonian (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country." Whether they never receive their naturalisation is irrelevant, as we are specifically discussing players that DID receive their citizenship to represent a foreign national team different from the one of their birth. Therefore, players such as Mauro Camoranesi and Julio Libonatti are "Argentine, naturalised-Italians".Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What? You've just said "whether they receive naturalisation is irrelevant", then concluded anyone who plays for a national other than that of the country he was born in is "naturalised". No. Again, under Italian nationality law citizenship is assigned at birth based on the parents' citizenship, not the place of birth. It is perfectly possible for people to be born Italian citizens outside Italy and therefore never require naturalisation as Italians. You would need to give a reliable source in each case to clear up whether the person in question did in fact go through naturalisation or not, otherwise it's potentially wrong and potentially a WP:BLP issue as well. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In Italian case, except Emerson, (represent Brazil but Italian citizen by marriage+ naturalization) Amuari (represent Italy but Italian citizen by marriage+ naturalization), they (Eder, Motta etc) were partially Italian descent (Oriundo). For Diego Costa, did he naturalized as a Spanish citizen as a Hispanic speaker? For most of the Swiss footballer i think the word "naturalized " should be added, but for those dual nationality by birth, is a "XXX-YYY footballer who represent YYY," is that enough? Matthew_hk t c 14:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

But why? Our MOS at WP:OPENPARA says the nationality given should be that of "the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable" and that "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". How is it relevant to the notability of, say, Shaqiri, Behrami or Moubandje where they were born? What does it add to put "naturalised" or whatever? Are they any less Swiss citizens or any less members of the Swiss national team? — Cliftonian (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Amauri is 100% naturalised. Eder and Motta are few of the many Oriundo in the history of Italian football (and there are dozens going back to Julio Libonatti in the 1920s). Personally, I feel that there should be a special introduction for these sort of players rather than leaving it blank. As I proposed, "Brazilian-born Italian professional footballer", or "a Brazilian, naturalised-Italian professional footballer" explain it clearly without the need for a new paragraph for every Oriundo or dual-national player.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, if you click on the Oriundo article there is a list of all the Oriundo in history and their intros are formatted as "Swiss-Italian" or "Argentine-Italian". If you are happy to remove it from the Thiago Motta article, then go ahead and change it on all of those articles starting with Mauro Camoranesi who won the World Cup in 2006.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to remove it from all of them, the problem often is people incorrectly adding and re-adding, or by habit adding things like "is an Italian who plays for X and Italy" to every article. Koncorde (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Side note: Looking at Julio Libonatti as an example, his description as an "Italian Argentine" is neither accurate, nor relevant. Historically you represented the country you played your national football in. There are also no sources provided as evidence regarding his heritage or nationality status. He may well be "Oriundo" but as far as we are concerned, he "was professional footballer who played for both Argentina and Italy" as this sums up the facts. Koncorde (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is a whole book written about him referenced with ISBN in the second paragraph that details his nationality. So please do not state there is not information because it is not written in English. The second source states: What part of Italy were from parents of Julio Libonatti? "They were southern Italians, Calabria". He was born in Argentina to Italian immigrants (as many Argentines were at the time) and returned 'home' to play for Italy. He is most certainly an Italian Argentine person.Danieletorino2 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, to be clear, what I meant was that we do not know what nationality is Italian Argentine. The phrase "Italian Argentine" is not used (from what I could see). He is, evidently, Argentinian. He happens to have Italian heritage. Okay, so how far back through the generations does heritage extend? Are you "Italian Argentine" if your great great great great grandfather was Italian? Are you Italian Argentine if your mother is Argentine, but you were born in Italy and lived there your whole life on an Argentinian passport? Koncorde (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a whole article on Italian Argentines and Italian nationality law for reference. I'm not sure what to define Libonatti, but the facts state that he was an Argentine footballer, naturalised Italian who played as a striker.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If his parents were Italians, why would he require naturalisation? Would be not be an Italian citizen from birth under Italian nationality law? — Cliftonian (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Italian law does not work like that. I was born in Australia but my father is from Italy and I did not receive Italian citizenship. My mother is from Austria and I automatically received Austrian citizenship (I was even called up to their army on my 18th birthday). People of Italian descent must always apply for the citizenship, no matter how many generations removed. Thus, if the player chooses to play for Italy, I think it should be important to note that they are naturalised.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Is that strictly speaking naturalisation though, as opposed to just registering as a citizen? The Italian nationality law page says the kids of citizens are citizens too, if I've understood it right. — Cliftonian (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That is a good question, but I am not sure. All I have to go by is "Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country." So if we look at players such as Eder and Camoranesi, they were definitely non-citizens at some point. They then 'acquired citizenship or nationality of that country' thus becoming naturalised.Danieletorino2 (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Registering a citizenship one is already entitled to is not the same as being naturalised, which is what happens to those who qualify for citizenship through residency etc. By the logic of your last post all babies are naturalised the minute any country acknowledges them as citizens; of course that isn't the case, what happens is they are already citizens at birth and the state merely registers them as such. This can happen years after the birth, but isn't naturalisation. In any case, your reasoning above is original research, unfortunately; we would need sources for each case to claim each person is "naturalised" specifically. — Cliftonian (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Or could be borrow FIFA concept of naturalization? FIFA did not mention passport directly but in FIFA, nationality means POB or parent and grandparent POB. for FIFA naturalization means 5-year residency. So, for Diego Costa case certainly a naturalization. Matthew_hk t c 16:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Costa's case is different from the ones we've been discussing above in that he actually was naturalised as Spanish on the basis of a certain number of years' residency in Spain, rather than receiving citizenship based on Spanish ancestry. So yes, he would be a naturalisation. But I still see no reason to change, in this regard his article looks fine to me as it is. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

it confuse people not to mention Miralem Pjanić and Neven Subotić's dual sports nationality, or Thiago Motta and Diego Costa. Matthew_hk t c 17:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Back to Argentine Italians, in the old days of football there was no such thing as nationalities as we currently understand them. Several very famous footballers represented multiple nations during the formative years of international football based on residency of the club they played for rather than passport or heritage. There are also the issues with East and West Germany, Or those communist national players allowed a late in life transfer to the wider world. Koncorde (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And Matthew, how does it "confuse" people to require them to read a few lines down to get an explanation? Why put some contrived description in the first line that invariably seems to imply the "new" nationality is somehow lass valid than the "old"? Why, indeed, confuse people by putting so much weight on the place of birth as an indicator of nationality? Is Terry Butcher "Singaporean-born"? — Cliftonian (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

To define Motta as "a Brazilian-born Italian footballer", is not a "scientific" definition but I think that, correctly, clarifies the situation.Danieletorino2 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It's also not true as he is not just an Italian footballer. Thiago Motta is "a Brazilian born footballer of dual Brazilian and Italian nationality who plays for Italy" would be the accurate (and unnecessary) description. Koncorde (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That description could mean Motta left Brazil for Italy as a baby, whereas in fact he was already a professional footballer when the switch of sporting nationality occurred. WP:OPENPARA, quoted above, which says not to stress the place of birth in the opening sentence unless it's relevant to the subject's notability. Is the place of birth so notable? One can just look a few inches to the right and see the place of birth in the infobox anyway!! As Koncorde says, this is all unnecessary and best avoided at the start of the article. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

except POB as expat who left that country at young age, dual nationality player who represent both (youth + youth or youth + another adult team), is notable to mention as XXX-YYY footballer. Matthew_hk t c 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it notable? It's remarkably common throughout football history. There are very few cases of noteworthiness that a player has switched allegiance, and per the definition of FIFA in allowing players to switch - it evidently is not important to them if a player represents another nation at U21 level as you don't have to make your mind up until you represent a senior team in a competitive match. Danny Potts for instance represented the US U20 team until it was confirmed that he had no conferred nationality. At the most convoluted someone from the UK, raised in Canada, could realistically play for England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, Ireland and Jamaica at u21 (if their family lineage was so composed) and then declare for Canada, but only play non competitive games and switch to another team later on. By the rational above I can only imagine the fun that would be had with his "nationality". Koncorde (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with explaining the situation properly in the second, third or fourth sentence, or even just later in the first sentence, rather than making a pig's ear of it right at the start with some contrived, confusing, potentially misleading mix of demonyms? — Cliftonian (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia

There's a new article PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia (that I had to semi-protect before it was 24 hours old!) that claims to be a successor club to PFC CSKA Sofia. I can't tell much from the sources as they are in Bulgarian, is there anyone who is more knowledgeable about what going on with PFC CSKA Sofia? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not even two days old and already I've had to full-protect the page for two days! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The article screems the removal of the unsourced claim of "Its expecting that most of PFC CSKA Sofia players will join the new team." from the "Foundation" section per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. I will try to ask some old retired Bulgarian hooligans to give me an update about the insights of this story. FkpCascais (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This page is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on at the PFC CSKA Sofia regarding the club's current status, with a few accusations of vandalism being thrown around. I don't understand the situation and can't find anything useful in English to help. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In a related item, 2016–17 PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia season should be moved back to 2016–17 PFC CSKA Sofia season following the deletion decision for its parent article, right? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been redirected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the real CSKA Sofia has been in financial difficulties for some time and did not get a license to play in the professional league in 2015-16, instead they were obliged to play in the third tier, an amateur league (despite this, they won the Bulgarian Cup). This year their financial struggles have continued, the club has gone into bankruptcy proceedings and again have been refused a license to play in the professional league. Meanwhile, the owner(?) has pursued a course that involves a new company taking over Litex who do have a professional licence and renaming it CSKA Sofia. There would seem to be two club called CSKA at present. The bankruptcy trustees are protesting, other clubs are protesting, the BFU say the 'new' CKSA cannot have the 31 titles of the 'real' CKSA. So it's an unholy mess at the moment. Unfortunately all the sources are in Bulgarian, which is not easy to follow though google translate helps. www.sportal.gb has the stories. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese Football Federation

Any change of "resurrecting" hundreds of links with national team data for Portuguese footballers (WWW.FPF.PT)? I think the site might have changed its configuration. New display is seen in Anthony Lopes, have just retrieved it now. The old one? For instance in Simãozinho.

If nothing can be done but manually, well bugger... Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Please can you provide an example of the old link and the new link? Giant Snowman 06:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems they have completely changed their system. For example, with Simãozinho, the player ID has changed from 731221 to 746068. The pages render in both English and Portuguese, so it would be best if the updated links were in English. Hack (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To reply GS, old link looks something like this (http://www.fpf.pt/pt-pt/Selecoes/Pesquisa-de-Internacionais/Jogador/Id/613194/ignoreFilter/true/CARLOS-FORTES), new link stands like this (http://www.fpf.pt/pt/Jogadores/Pesquisar-Jogadores-Internacionais/Anthony-Lopes/contextId/172). --Be Quiet AL (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Might be an idea for WP:BOTREQUEST. Giant Snowman 18:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User creating numerous non-notable articles

Certainly a FK Željezničar Sarajevo fan, he created articles for every single player of the club. Needless to say that the players of the club which passed notability already had an article, meaning he created articles for all the ones that shoudn't have it. Often he also removed sourced information and even tags added by other editors. He is Adis_Mesic. I doubt he speaks English probably that is why he just makes infboxes for players, no text, no edit summaries... all just garbage. FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

FkpCascais I've left them a note about notability guidelines, but looks like someone else did that a week ago and got no response. If someone could nominate them all in one AfD, that's probably the easiest way to delete them. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Something of the sort of "collective nomination" for deletion was also what I was thinking of. FkpCascais (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone knows how to multi-AfD i.e. nominate all of them properly in one discussion, please do it. Twinkle only lets me nominate them one at a time. On another note, the editor in question has been blocked for 72 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Joachim Löw

Do we need [18] such edits? I think it is a clear violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP, but I don't want to editwar. --Jaellee (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it trivial at best.--Echetus Xe 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No, and it's also WP:NOTNEWS. SLBedit (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Club seasons

Does Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons still reflect the consensus article format for club season articles? For example, I notice that some newer club articles are using regular wikitable rather than the efs templates and the colours used to indicate draws in results lists is slightly different (yellow vs grey). Hack (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What is considered sufficient citation for a player's club honors?

Another user section blanked club honors on the Shunsuke Nakamura article for being "uncited". I was unaware these needed to be specifically cited, and notice that most player articles (even FA-rated player articles) lack complete citations for team honors. So, what is considered sufficient citation for club honors? Is a citation that the player participated in the competitions in question enough? Is it necessary to also have a citation that the club actually won the competition in question? More than that? My search of the archives didn't turn up anything helpful, although my search term choice may have been suboptimal. Thanks in advance for guidance - I really have no interest in such petty disputes. --Sesameball^Talk 22:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I am confused. That's very unlike GiantSnowman. Unless we have reason to believe the information is incorrect or the content is controversial, then usually you just tag the area for citations required. Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is very much like him, as can be seen here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.183.186 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link - my search terms were indeed suboptimal, as I used the spelling "honors" rather than "honours" - sorry about that. But frankly, the debate in that link is precisely the type that, every time I run across something like it, makes me not want to continue participating in wikipedia - it boggles the mind how club honours could be in any way "contentious"; the only possible contention is that the article subject never played for the team(s) in question during the competition(s) in question, in which case the ire of editors making such claims should be focused on other parts of the article to begin with. Anyway, in the interests of being productive, I still welcome guidance on what the consensus is on what citation(s) is/are sufficient for club honours. Would providing a reference that the article subject played in the competitions in question (i.e., most any stats database) pass muster? --Sesameball^Talk 02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Double my confusion. I can't see how removing the content is better than adding citation needed tags, and I would never have thought to see that behaviour from GS (who I have always thought of as an excellent contributor). Koncorde (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

In a way GS has been doing it to encorage people to add sources to the honors sections, and he is right cause unsourced material can and should be deleted. We all know that adding the citation template often doesn't make much and it often stays for years there. I have been adding sources such as soccerway or national-football-teams.com which mention the titles in players articles. Otherwise any news article saying player X won Y would be usefull as well for sourcing a specific title in honors section. FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Unsourced material should not be deleted (there is certainly no requirement for to be unless it is potentially controversial), it should be sourced. There are productive and unproductive ways of dealing with it. Number 5 7 20:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: for a long time, following another discussion somewhere, we used to tag and add the article to User:Macosal/BLP and allow a month for the content to be referenced before removing it. It worked for a period but then people started referencing less and less (meaning that unsourced content remained for longer and longer). Nobody has used it since November 2015. Giant Snowman 20:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If the unreferenced stuff is really a problem for you, then why not reference it yourself? Destroying articles (like this or this is the least helpful approach you could take. Why do you do it? Number 5 7 21:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume the article references the book sources, correct? Then why remove all of the content? Just because the references were not placed inline? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean Number 57, often good and valid content is removed in such way, but I also saw fake content being desguised that way. Indeed one can really conclude that the only safe way to keep just valid content is sometimes to be harsh and remove unsourced content without mercy. With a decade long experience, I can tell by myself that initially I used to add unsourced content, and it was preciselly such deletion of content that made me learn to be rigorous with sourcing so I wouldn't spend time in vain and so my content wouldn't end up deleted. I guess most new editors by default underestimate the value of sourcing on our project and the ruthless deletion of that sort is unfortunatelly a good way to impose sourcing. FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: But that's not what's happening in many cases. Instead of being in a state where they can be improved upon (i.e. with citation needed tags) decent articles are taken down to a single line saying "John Smith was a footballer who played for Footown United", meaning that whoever wants to improve the article has to start from scratch. Number 5 7 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not destroying the articles; adequate sources for these claims are few and far between; the burden to source is on the person who introduces the material. Anyone on Wikipedia who is happy with keepingheaps of unreferenced content on articles is showing a severe lack of appreciation for some of our basic principles. Giant Snowman 07:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Adequate sources are not few and far between; a fair amount of the stuff you are deleting could easily be referenced to Neil Brown's website for a start. And your last comment is wrong; there is no policy that says everything has to be referenced – it's only material that is likely to be challenged that's a problem, and much of what you are deleting is not likely to be challenged. In contrast, I feel that your actions are actually violating guidelines, specifically not to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Whenever this comes up I seriously consider whether this is worth raising on ANI because I think you are doing a huge amount of damage for very little or no gain. Number 5 7 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Neil Brown confirms an individual's honours - since when? Feel free to raise an ANI if you wish, however "editor removes unsourced content" isn't really juicy enough for the dramaboards I don't think. Giant Snowman 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the honours, I was talking about details of players careers that you frequently delete. This is well beyond a simple case of "editor removes unsourced content". Number 5 7 17:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If the e.g. Fred Tunstall content is so easy to reference then why hasn't it been restored and sourced? His careeer is pre-war and Neil Brown doesn't cover that, and I don't have access to a Joyce pre-war book, or either of the two books listed. The content had been unsourced since article creation in October 2006. How is that, or content such as "The partnership of Tunstall and Gillespie and their mutual understanding of each other, ability to command instant superiority by quick thinking, accurate passing, and determination to seize an opportunity when within goal-range, were alone sufficient to keep the Blades in contentment and respectability", benefiting Wikipedia? Giant Snowman 17:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously there will be cases where sourcing is difficult, but that does not excuse blanket deletion for those that are easy (e.g. this). Number 5 7 17:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel as though there are better alternatives to just removing the content. What about commenting it out? Then that would easily let editors add references to the information. Also, what about a way of keeping track of some of these unreferenced honours sections? I myself would help out, if I knew which articles had the honours section removed (or hidden). The current method of just removing content seems counterproductive, and goes against the purpose of an encyclopedia. Also, I am sure some of these articles have sources for honours in the prose, just not the honours sections. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: - Is a link to soccerway sufficient for club honours citation? I'm hesitant to cite soccerway because I've found lots of mistakes in their stats. For example - ironically, on the subject of Shunsuke Nakamura - for quite some time soccerway listed Nakamura as achieving Celtic club honours in the 2010 and 2011 seasons - after his 2009 transfer to Espanyol, and even his subsequent transfer off the continent back to Yokohama. The information has since been fixed (because I e-mailed them to fix it) but it shows quite some carelessness on their part. In any case, I'll assume soccerway is sufficient and this is all the information I was seeking. (Hopefully I did the ping correctly this time.) --Sesameball^Talk 13:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes Soccerway would be sufficient, though I have also noted numerous errors e.g. giving a youth player with zero appearances a 'league winner' honour. Giant Snowman 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sesameball: it's polite to ping somebody when you talk about them. Yes I have removed unreferenced information from biographies of living people, and will continue to do so. WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V. This is basic stuff. Giant Snowman 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My original post here had nothing to do with you. It was about guidance on what constitutes appropriate citation for a club honour (and I am still seeking such guidance). If you wanted, you could have replied on my talk page where I did in fact ping you in my reply. --Sesameball^Talk 23:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are you lying? Your very first sentence is "Another user section blanked club honors on the Shunsuke Nakamura article for being "uncited"" - which is clearly referring to this. which you reverted on the same day as your original post. And your ping didn't work as you have to add a signature at the same time as the ping, not after. Giant Snowman 07:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: I didn't make this post to discuss that issue. It's not about you - quite frankly, I don't care about you; I just want to restore the Nakamura article and be done with it. Others decided to bring you up. There is no need to accuse me of lying just because I made a mistake with the ping function. You're just being uncivil at this point. --Sesameball^Talk 13:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:UEFA Euro 2016 players

Please help me find the two Euro 2016 players that don't have Category:UEFA Euro 2016 players added. The category has 550 players, when it should have 552... Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A big job, but why not sort the players in the category by nation? Then you can see what nation is missing players. Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

One more to find.. Thanks to the editor who found one. JMHamo (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Current count is at 251. Seems as though Valentino Lazaro was incorrectly categorised, while Bogdan Stancu and John Guidetti were not in the category. Sorry, in a rush, hopefully you can fix them. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done @Secret Agent Julio: Great work, thanks! JMHamo (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Miralem Pjanić

Miralem Pjanić has completed his move to Juventus from Roma, but I was under the impression that club information should only be changed after the transfer window begins?Danieletorino2 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, yes. Giant Snowman 06:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought that impression was outdated once we determined that domestic transfers (i.e. ones that don't require FIFA international clearance as this one does) could take place as soon as the domestic season ended. – Pee Jay 12:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I'm looking at various club pages and I see:

Red Star Belgrade vs. Sporting Clube de Portugal

1. FC Köln vs. TSV 1860 Munich

FC Dynamo Moscow vs. FC Dynamo Kyiv

??? Was there allready a debate about that? Are there any rules? Now it is a total mess. Linhart (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for the most part we go with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), which says we should go with what the club calls itself on the English language version of its website, provided that name has been adopted by at least a significant proportion of the media (not necessarily a majority) and the name is recognisable to an English speaking audience. If the club doesn't have an English language version of its website, we go with what the majority of the English-speaking media say. Except for Inter Milan; apparently that club disobeys all our rules... – Pee Jay 12:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Aha, thanks.Linhart (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Then, the second article you listed would be renamed Sporting Lisbon. SLBedit (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on name of All Japan Regional Football Promotion League Series at WP:JA talk page

Dear all,

I started a request for comment about the name of All Japan Regional Football Promotion League Series at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Correct article name for All Japan Regional Football Promotion League Series?. In order to not have discussions at two places at the same time, you are invited to comment on the matter over there. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Player transfers

Why some users keep changing players' club information only because players signed a contract with a new club? The transfer season is not open. See Raphaël Guerreiro, Nicolás Gaitán, for instance. SLBedit (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) @Be Quiet AL and Mattythewhite: SLBedit (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The club website states that "Borussia Dortmund have completed the transfer of Portuguese international and European Championship participant Raphaël Guerreiro". I don't see why the Raphaël Guerreiro article shouldn't be updated to say the player now plays for Borussia Dortmund.--Echetus Xe 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

They completed the signing which is effective 1 July, like any other summer transfer. Morbid example, what if the player dies before July? SLBedit (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I stick to what I said in your page regarding my views on this and Matty's input last year, SLB. If I made a mess out of his words, then I apologize. But as you see, Echetus also thinks as I (not saying we are right and you are not, just saying). --Be Quiet AL (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

SLB: good example, but in such a terrible event, we would revert to the pertinent version. Easy, no? --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying that it was decided that it was a waste of time and effort enforcing any precise and technically accurate transfer / contract dates on player articles. As long as it is reported in reliable sources that the transfer has been completed then that is enough. If you see List of English football transfers summer 2016, then you see the date the transfer was confirmed, then a little note "b Player officially joined his club on 1 July 2016." If a player dies or the transfer is cancelled or something then yeah, as Be Al Quiet AL says, we can just update the article again with the relevant information.--Echetus Xe 20:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and I'm pretty sure Guerreiro's contract with Lorient only ends on 30 June. SLBedit (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In English football at least, a club can sign new players as soon as that club's playing season is over. What applies in the German or Italian leagues I don't know. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

~~By the way, Guerreiro has to do medical exams at Borussia Dortmund. Right now, he's with the national team at the Euro.~~ SLBedit (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Guerreiro had a medical checkup in Paris on Wednesday, with clearance from the Portuguese Football Federation." - Wikinews SLBedit (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

In Germany contracts run until 30 June. So, no updates before 1 July. Kante4 (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I'd caution against here is excessive over-correction. If a player has signed a contract to move and the deal is done, we shouldn't update until July but if an editor or editors are being intransigent, we should also weigh the benefits of absolute accuracy against the disadvantages and time taken in dealing with these matters. I'd suggest an informal one or two reverts with one or two talk or user talk page notes. However if editing persists beyond that then, unless there's good reason to think that the transfer won't go through, I think we're better leaving it for the sake of 1-2 weeks! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions the agreement between clubs to transfer the player. No need to change club information until July. SLBedit (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

For information, the transfer windows for each country for transfers that have to go through FIFA's Transfer Matching System, i.e. international transfers, are listed at the FIFA TMS website. As you'll see, the window in Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal doesn't open until 1 July, but most other European countries' windows are already open. These dates don't (yet) necessarily apply to domestic transfers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the cut off should be done deal, comparing to subject to medical. I only heard deals collapsed due to window closing (and medical), but never heard deal collapsed due to window not yet open. It is reasonable to edit twice in June and again on 1 July, as some players also signed a pre-contract who going to be a free agent on 1 July. i.e., "is Italian footballer who last played for XXX, and signed a contract with YYY effective on 1 July 2016." Matthew_hk t c 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards

I've just declined a WP:PROD on List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards and taken it to AFD, on the grounds that whatever decision is made regarding whether this is an appropriate article is likely to have a significant knock-on effect on the coverage of other football teams, and on Wikipedia's coverage of sports teams in general. Any comments welcome. ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Inter Milan

Please take a look at recent contributions by Tiller54 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Flags in current squad

If a player has no caps for any international team, but holds more than one nationalities, which flag should be displayed? Because some user keep changing Jonatas Belusso flag on Seoul E-Land FC to Syrian, while the player was born in Brazil, and all sources like Soccerway, ZeroZero, UEFA, Transfermarkt (not reliable site, but still) etc. treats him as a Brazilian player, apparently there is some strange rule in Korean 2nd division that if he gets a passport of an Asian country he is not treated as a full foreigner (so the team can bring one more foreign player), but that should not be a reason to have Syrian flag next to his name ? 86.58.36.235 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just like the case of Cleo, he received a Serbia passport but did not eligible to play for Serbia (he did not have enough year of residency). I think leave Belusso as Brazilian as either he did not receive Syrian call-up yet or he is not eligible to play. Matthew_hk t c 19:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly as Matthew said. Definitelly Brazilian. Long time ago we agree to add the flag of the first nationality which is from the national team the player repreents or represented (if more than one, the most recent one then) and if the player had no calls for any national team, then the flag should be the one representing his place of birth and nationality. In case of having more than one nationaity, the one representing his place of birth and the one he had for longer time is the one represented. As in Cleo, he is Brazilian born in Brazil, he later receved as well Serbian citizenship, but that is irrelevant, Brazilian citizenship is the primary. FkpCascais (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, player can receive call-up and refuse, or even applied for change in nationality to FIFA then refuse to response the call-up to the new country. So a new passport is not quite eligible to change his flag. Matthew_hk t c 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Call me an idealist, but I would've thought someone would have cracked this in the time I was away. Even putting aside the emotive arguments involved in disputed cases – not to mention the potential BLP issues involved in incorrectly assigning nationality – we still choose to mass ignore MOS:FLAG in order to preserve an outdated template? It is true that in 95% of cases nationality is straightforward (the main argument was always that a few cases don't justify nuking all flags, though "few" still means "thousands" on a project like this). It's equally true that in the vast majority of cases a footballer's nationality is of no relevance to the article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

All champinships have limits for foreign players, most clubs are proud to have their players playing in different national teams, the provenience of foreigners of clubs is always an interessting subject, all this are reasons why football websites allways mention nationality of the players, why should we do differently? FkpCascais (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

For the player in question - reliable sources say he is Brazilian, we are fine to use a Brazilian flag. Giant Snowman 09:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In the 70's the maximum number of foreign players in a line-up was 2 in the Netherlands. That's why in this match [19] Lerby was subbed shortly after Peter Lübeke came on the pitch. The third foreign player was Frank Arnesen. Roda JC played with Sten Ziegler, Jens Kolding and Terry Lees on the same day [20] and that was no problem at all, because Ziegler was a resident of the Netherlands for more than 3 years. Ajax got away with it because they only played a very short period with 3 foreign players. Vlaardingen was not so lucky a few months later. in this match [21] they fielded Mitrovic, Drapic and Boudewijn (not Boudewijk). Vlaardingen assumed Boudewijn was Dutch but at that time he was still Belgian (he was naturalized two weeks later). The match was replayed 5 months later [22] this time they were allowed to play together. Another curious case is Eddy Sobczak born in the Netherlands of Polish decent, who was on the verge of being selected for a national youth team. But he couldn't be selected because he had no nationality at all [23] He was stateless (staatloos in Dutch). Cattivi (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Many wrong changes by 212.8.45.194

212.8.45.194 make many wrong changes in the kits of the national teams (Euro, Copa America, World Cup). It's unbelievable. --IM-yb (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Also restores kits with logos. --IM-yb (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and revert IP. SLBedit (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

UEFA Euro specific match article

Is this notable? I can't see why... Kante4 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Does not look notable to me. Nothing special with that match and the neccesary information with lineup, cards and goalscores are listed at UEFA Euro 2016 Group F#Portugal vs Iceland. Qed237 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, non notable, nothing special about the match. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No, delete. The only notable thing is Portugal not winning Iceland. SLBedit (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Can someone take it to AFD? I am on Phone right now... Kante4 (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete quickly. Embarrassing performance and result for Portugal, Ronaldo throwing a tantrum, but still. The Replicator (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's notable for Iceland but not notable for Wikipedia in my opinion. It's just a group stage match. SLBedit (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I've PRODded it, but the PROD will likely get removed by the article creator. If it does, someone should definitely AfD it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added {{Prod2}}, and I'm watching the page. I don't get much time on Wikipedia at home, so if it is deprodded, someone else will likely AfD it before I do. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Chinese Owned Football Clubs

It looks too over-categorization. Matthew_hk t c 02:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

... and miscapitalized, and missing a hyphen, and uncategorized ... HandsomeFella (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:CFD. Giant Snowman 07:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Third place at the EUROs

I have seen an editor adding medal templates to the German EURO 2012 squad. They did not finish in first or second, and since no third-place match was played, I'm not sure how they finished third or should be awarded a medal. Any comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

An example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mario_G%C3%B6tze&curid=27640410&diff=726129556&oldid=725737039

I also noticed that, but apparently Portugal and Germany both received bronze medals in Euro 2012 for reaching the semi-finals. Hashim-afc (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Assist for players in Euro 2016

I have a question about the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016_statistics". Under the section "player statistics">"assists" I wonder why Ibrahimovic (Sweden) and Nicolic (Hungary) are not in the list of assist makers? Also, why is Fabregas listed as having one assist? I'm asking because I can't find this information easily accessible on the UEFA Euro 2016 Statistics page which is the only reference of this part of the wikipedia page. The only way I can find information on assist it is by reading through UEFAs match reports and in those reports assist are given to Ibrahimovic and Nicolic (for playing the ball that led to the own goal). But Fabregas is not given an assist for Nolitos goal according to the match reports. So I assume your information is not derived from the match reports, but I just can't find the information on the reference page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016_statistics#cite_note-uefa-stats-3). Are these mistakes or is some different source being used. DenSluge (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)DenSluge

We shouldn't be tracking assists here, we don't for any other tournaments/leagues. Giant Snowman 09:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the last four World Cups, anyway... Personally, for within a tournament finals, and so long as they're sourced to the organisers of those finals, so that there's no argument as to definition, I don't see a problem with including assists. I do see a problem, WP:NOTSTATS-wise, with these articles just being presented as "here's a list of endless names, flags and bits of total trivia, do with it what you will", particularly things like the overall results tables: average goal difference? are we sure? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

By that logic why don't we include assist stats in a player's domestic career table, if they are sourced to the organisers of the league? Giant Snowman 11:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Because there's been a consensus not to? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

So there's consensus against including assists as statistics? So why allow it for these select tournaments? Giant Snowman 11:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Far as I remember, we've had a consensus about including them in individual stats tables, largely because they're generally unsourceable, and where sources do exist, achieving and maintaining consistency would be more trouble than it's worth because of the variety of different sources available. It's difficult enough getting appearances and goals right, let alone anything as subjective as assists. But in a brief high-profile tournament, where stats of various sorts are officially recorded and published, those arguments don't apply. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Unlike most stats the 'assist' isn't something that actually gets officially recorded in football matches. There is no definition as to what does and what does not consist an assist and provide no benefit to any of the articles which include them. All assists tables should be removed on sight. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Not officially recorded by whom? The referee doesn't, certainly, but FIFA do for World Cup finals and UEFA do for the finals of the Euros. Are you seriously arguing that assists provide "no benefit to any of the articles which include them", while lists of single yellow cards or tables of average goal difference stats do? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed that the other stuff was any good, in fact I think that the whole article falls under the WP:NOTSTATS, but that was not the discussion which was being had. I was saying that there are no situations in my opinion in which assists provide a positive impact on an article as there are so many places in this project where they are not included by consensus. The rest of the article if it doesn't fall under NOTSTATS can be cleaned up => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 13:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Talking of official recording, were you aware that if there's a tie for the World Cup Golden Boot, the first tiebreaker is number of assists? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

No doubt that assists are given an official and reliably sourceable nature when published by the organisers of a competition. Also think that they are probably the most relevant individual statistic for outfielders other than goals (of course that's just an opinion). I can't see a reason why not to include them on pages such as the one in question here. Macosal (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

World Cup penalty shoot-out records

What are the opinions concerning a succession box for "World Cup penalty shoot-out records"? See this edit. --Jaellee (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Perišić

Could we keep an eye on Ivan Perišić.. a lot of vandalism. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, could an editor good with tables, please remove the Assists from the Career Stats? I am sure to make a mess if I were to try. JMHamo (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Took care of it :) --SuperJew (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Qualification permutations at UEFA Euro 2016

This article was created earlier today. Here at Wikipedia, we have made a point of not allowing original research, crystal balling and such. And this article will be entirely moot by Thursday anyway. I think it should be deleted. Thoughts? The Replicator (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as I was typing this, @Qed237: nominated the article for speedy deletion. The Replicator (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As soon as I saw it, I felt it should be speedy deleted as it is pure WP:OR and a creation that will soon be useless and it was only created because an editor could not have his possibilities written in the group stage articles. Not sure if I used the correct criteria, but should definately be deleted. Qed237 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: That was why I came here first. Thanks. The Replicator (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Replicator: CSD declined. Now AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualification permutations at UEFA Euro 2016. Qed237 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I recall though seeing permutations on group stage pages. Is that not a thing anymore? --SuperJew (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Those permutations/scenarios used to be posted at last matchdays and such, but they are considered WP:OR, therefore, not allowed. The thing was that the user who created the above mentioned article tried to put those scenarios at the Euro 2016 main page, but was reverted of course, so he created a full article on that, which will be totally useless by tomorrow. Funnily enough, neither he or the IP who edited after him came to update with yesterday's results. The Replicator (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. I was just wondering aloud as I do remember it. Though I'm not so sure about how WP:OR it is since many media and commentators talk about these permutations on last matchdays. Regardless, I also voted for deletion of the separate page as it will be outdated once the last matches are played. --SuperJew (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I have closed the AfD as a snow delete given that it will be completely useless in 24 hours time. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fenix down: Thanks. As mentioned above Qed237 tried to do a speedy deletion but it was denied. The Replicator (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Corbett Sports stadium

Is consensus here still to avoid sponsored names for grounds? If so, I assume that the recent move of Corbett Sports Stadium from the original page at Belle Vue should not have been made? Kosack (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is. I've moved it back. Number 5 7 10:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Free agent infobox

Is it appropriate to put Free Agent or Unattached to player's infobox as Club parameter? --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say no. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those are clubs.--Echetus Xe 22:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think BlameRuiner means in the current club section. Unattached is the one I have seen used (and I think it's the better one). Number 5 7 22:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed he meant in the "current club" parameter, but I would still refrain from it, personally. It's almost like how we wouldn't use "retired" in the current club parameter. I haven't seen it much, but if a player is unattached, I usually just put in the lead "and last played for X club". Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the "current club" parameter. I agree that both values are not a club, but it's just useful and informative, that's all. And somehow it's been used without any problems in a national team player template. FWIW I also often seen TBA used as player's number (both in his infobox and in team squad), while it's also not a number. -BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should. The parameter is for the name of the player's employer, whether it be the club they play for, manage, or work for in some other capacity. For retired players, the instructions in the infobox documentation state explicitly that we leave the field blank rather than putting |currentclub=Retired, and there's no qualitative difference between that and Unattached. If the currentclub is blank, then the player hasn't got a current club, and the reader has a quick glance at the opening paragraph to see what it says: "is a footballer who last played for Foo F.C.", "is a former footballer", "was a footballer"...

I've been removing some recently, because there were so many it had started to annoy me, particularly when an awful lot of the players concerned weren't actually unattached at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree that it should just be left blank if the player has actually left the club (i.e. no longer contracted). Giant Snowman 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I also think it should be left blank. Also clubnumber should be blank if the player just moved and hasn't been assigned a number yet. --SuperJew (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Leave it blank. Kante4 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Football League/EFL

Does anyone have any idea when the Football League officially becomes the EFL? The website is all now branded as such, so I suspect it may have happened already. Do we really need to go through RMs to move the articles or is it (hopefully) obvious enough that they have new names?

And before we do that, should we go with English Football League or EFL? I wonder whether it might be a good idea to follow the North American pattern of having the league at the full name (e.g. National Hockey League/2015–16 NHL season, National Football League/2016 NFL season).

Plus there are also the divisional articles (EFL Championship?) to think about. The only thing that seems fairly clear is that the cups are now the EFL Cup and EFL Trophy. Number 5 7 20:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no indication that this change is any more longstanding that previous changes under sponsorship - is there any indication that next year it wont be the XXXX Cup? I'm not sure why the English Football league has decided to rebrand as the "EFL" but I wouldn't be inclined to change the Cups names (other than to perhaps pre-face with "English"). Referring to it within articles as the EFL would be fine as obvious shorthand. Koncorde (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But the difference is that this isn't a sponsored name, so we should follow suit. Number 5 7 20:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a temporary name, most of the history of the Football League and Football League Cup are at these names. You could do 1 RM for all pages, but it shouldn't be done without discussion IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Have they said it is only the EFL for a limited period of time then? Number 5 7 20:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, but who says it's going to be the same forever? No need to move it everytime they rebrand themselves. Just like we don't waste our time with sponsor names either. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But we do move pages of non-sponsored things when they are renamed (as we do with stadiums with sponsor-only names – e.g. the Bet365 Stadium one that went through recently). Or do you think we should still have Stevenage F.C. at Stevenage Borough F.C.? Number 5 7 20:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree the pages should be moved and feel a RM (while a bit of a pain to set up initially) would be a good way to organise it. Giant Snowman 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears one was actually started earlier today, although it only covers the main article. Number 5 7 20:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Batistuta / Argentina national football team / Messi

Reliable sources show that Batistuta scored 56 goals in 78 matches (all-time goalscorer for Argentina), but now there are other sources claiming that he scored 54 goals in 77 matches, because one of the matches was unofficial. Therefore, Messi is tied with Batistuta. SLBedit (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

According to new reliable sourace, Argentina Football Association offcially noticed that Messi is tied with Batistuta goal record due to unofficial match. Please refer to latest relialbe sources. http://www.sport-english.com/en/news/world-football/lionel-messi-draws-level-argentinas-all-time-top-goal-scorer-5215227

56 goals in 78 matches are based on old reliable sources.

I think we need not to discuss about this issue. We have to correct records by latest reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The AFA confirm it, which is more to the point, and explain where the difference comes from, a friendly against Slovakia B in 1995 in which Batistuta scored twice: see HERE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We have to fix this article List of international goals scored by Gabriel Batistuta.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There's an error in ESPN source: Batistuta struck 54 times in 78 appearances for Argentina (the AFA does not count two goals he scored against the Slovakian youth team in 1995). ESPN subtracted the two goals but didn't subutract the match. RSSSF is a better source. SLBedit (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So what does that mean? Due to RSSF source, 56 Goals/ 78 Matches are right? AFA confiremd that match with Slovakian youth team in 1995 was unofficial. So AFA recently subtract that match in full international match list for Argentina National Football Team. So What do you still want? Stay 56 Goals / 78 Matches in Wikipedia?Footwiks (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User deleting national football team logos

A user has deleted virtually the national team logo from virtually ever national team, as an example citing the failure to meet number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I'm not very familiar with this rule here, so came to get some more input. It seems strange to have no logos on these pages and I think there should've been a discussion first before they were all removed. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I would have thought they would be covered by number 2 of WP:NFCI which states team or corporate logos are acceptable. Seems a rather sweeping change to make without any obvious discussion. Kosack (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree, they seem fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hashim-afc (talk · contribs) seems to be arguing that since the national teams are "child entities" of the national football associations they represent, these logos should not be used on both the national team article and the association article, which seems like sound reasoning, even if I don't agree. However, I would point out that if we come to the conclusion that Hashim's reasoning is sound, the logos should be removed from all the national youth team articles as well. – Pee Jay 12:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

For information, the supposed consensus for the inclusion of NFC#UUI17 can be found here. Technically, there may be a point here, but firstly, there is hardly a consensus obtained, the discussion is clearly focused on corporate entities, not sporting organisations, contains the contributions of only three editors, with the initial poster being a confirmed sock of the notorious BetaCommand. Personally, although this has somehow made it into a guideline, I think the arguments for inclusion are extremely weak and the consensus non existent essentially. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am being bold and reverting these edits. I am not convinced this criterion for exclusion applies. When a football team is competing internationally it is competing as the representative team of its association. It is not a child entity. The england national football team is not a member of UEFA, the FA is. When England compete in competition it is the association as a member of UEFA with the team as its representative individuals. Thus the team and the FA are not parent and child but equal and inseparable elements of the same. Either way, what is not needed, is a single editor making a large number of edits without discussion, or courtesy messaging anywhere which is just going to create tension. A full discussion of this issue is needed, clarification almost certainly and then any action if necessary taken. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: your contribution would be welcome. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the impression that the Wikipedia community implicitly allows for using a national association badge for its national team(s), as the logo says "shirt badge/association crest" when your pointer stands on it. Kareldorado (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Given their widespread, longstanding use (literally years and years), it is clear there is is an unspoken consensus that this is fine. I believe I have reverted all the edits, but am happy for further discussion to take place. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I still have this page on my watchlist and was invited here by Fenix down, so I'd figured I comment. Just for reference, there has been a consensus established in various WP:FFD discussions of similar logos that their usage in individual team articles is not automatically considered NFCC compliant. We may disagree on how to define "consensus", but FfD is a community-wide discussion page like AfD, etc. and the the results of discussions there like at AfD, etc. are considered the etsablishiment of a consensus. For the record, I have nominated quite a number of files for discussion at FfD regarding No. 17 of NFC#UUI and while Fenix down and I disagree on the use of such logos, I have never objected to any further discussion regarding No. 17. I have in fact tried to initiate such discussions before at WT:NFCC and other places, but they never got very far. If clarification is needed on how the NFCC should be applied to such usage, then I think the discussion should take place at WT:NFCC. No disrespect to anyone here at FOOTY, but NFCC is community-wide so its talk page is where the discussion should be held.

As for Hashim-afc, I believe that has to do with User talk:Hashim-afc#File:Iraq Football Association logo.png listed for discussion and possibly User talk:Marchjuly#Iraq football logo. Probably out of frustration, Hashim-afc decided to get a bit WP:POINTY. Some of the logos removed were freely licensed logos available at Commons, which are not subject to NFCC, and I tried to fix those edits whenever I found them. Some of the non-free files which were removed were actually OK to remove for not having the separate, specific non-rationales required by WP:NFCC#10c. Those which did have rationales, however, should probably not have been removed in such a way without bringing them up for discussion first at FFD. FWIW, even though I may question the NFCC compliance of these logos in individual team articles, I do not think Hashim-afc was correct in doing this kind of thing at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that as a project we should seek clarification on what constitutes a 'child entity', and I agree that this is one that requires content/image knowledge, as much as footballing knowledge. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I need to make a few things clear. First thing is that I actually agree with everything that Fenix down has said about football teams not being child entities, which probably makes you question why I made these changes. When I uploaded File:Iraq Football Association logo.png and provided non-free use rationales for the FA article and all national teams articles, the logo was removed from the national team article within hours by Marchjuly. He/she said, and I quote: "The consensus established by previous FFD discussions about similar logo usage has been that use in the stand-alone article about the federation/association complies with WP:NFCC, but any usage in individual team articles does not because of No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI." and also showed me a previous discussion which had led to a previous version of the Iraq FA logo being removed from national team articles with next to no opposition. He also referred to previous discussions about the Brazil FA logo and Lithuania FA logo, and both of these also resulted in logos being removed from the national team pages. I also found some other cases of this happening such as with the Iran FA logo where Marchjuly said "These kind of No. 17 violations are fairly common since it seems as if almost every editor who edits sports article like this feels there is nothing wrong with using the same non-free sports logo in multiple child article of the same parent."

However, only certain non-free logos were being removed and not others. Logos like Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands etc which were being used on national team and football association articles weren't being removed while ones like Brazil and Iraq were. This is unfair on editors who had spent a lot of time editing those pages just to see their logos being removed and other ones which are also non-free and also supposedly violates no.17 not even being discussed.

The fact that all these discussions had led to logos being removed from the team articles but kept for the FA ones with next to no opposition made me think that I was wrong in thinking national teams weren't child entities, I thought that I was mistaken for believing that and that this was a Wikipedia rule for non free logos that wasn't being adhered to. Seeing the other discussions and the way they panned out made me (admittedly naively) believe that there was no reason to hold discussions when it came to this, especially as Marchjuly had made it very clear that they were violating no.17 which is why my Iraq logo was removed. All the previous discussions had led to them being removed very quickly. Therefore, I decided to remove all the logos, I had good intentions trust me, I was not trying to make a point like Marchjuly suggested. I thought I would be saving other people's time and helping Wikipedia, as having separate discussions for every single logo is very time-consuming. It took me a good half an hour. I also removed some free logos; that was an accident which I apologise for.

However, it now seems clear to me that what Marchjuly said to me (about national teams being child entities of the FA) wasn't a set-in-stone fact, but was rather his/her opinion and from what he/she told me, it sounded like it was a rule that couldn't be argued against. I am against removing logos from national team articles mainly for the reasons Fenix down described above. The national team is not really a child entity of the FA, and a logo can have more than two uses. In my opinion, a consensus needs to be decided on about this topic, otherwise we will be left with half of the national team articles having their logos removed and half of them not which is just silly. Thanks for reading Hashim-afc (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify - you thought you'd disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, make editors put in their (voluntary) labour to undon uncessary changes, because you wanted this topic discussing? You may want to consider whether or not you're helping Wikipedia? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: The first paragraph of WP:POINTY is "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed." The Iraqi logo you re-added had been removed by an administrator as the result of a FFD discussion. After you re-uploaded the logo in a different format and added it to team articles, I asked the closing admin about it at User talk:Explicit#Iraq Football Federation logos. He stated that his original close was still in effect. It was Explicit who removed the rationales for the individual teams you added to the file's page with this edit. It was also Explicit who removed the file from the national team's page with this edit. I did remove the file from the article here, here and here but that was because of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10c (two of the NFCCP). After you added the rationale, I started a discussion about the file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 May 21#Iraq Football Association logos and notified you of that discussion here and further clarified here. The final time I removed the logo was here after it had been added by an IP and after Expicit has confirmed that his close still applied to the use of the png version you uploaded. You asked my why the logo was removed on my user talk and I explained why. I also posted It's possible that you will see similar logos being used in various articles, but this does not mean that the usage is automatically considered policy compliant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It may take an FFD discussion to determine whether a particular usage is according to Wikipedia policy and If you see articles where non-free logos are being used in a way which you feel does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy, then you can start a discussion at WP:FFD to get opinions from other editors. Almost three weeks later after your original post has been archived, you posted this and less than 20 minutes later started massively removing logos from articles, regardless or whether they were freely licensed or had non-free use rationales . It looks like you were editing pretty regularly since I notified you of the FfD discussion about the file you uploaded back in May, but you never posted a comment there. It also looks as if you never made an attempt to discuss the non-free use with Explicit (the closing admin of the first FfD) or anyone else until your post on my user talk yesterday. Others may disagree, but it seems you were indeed trying to stir the pot in a disruptive way to try and get others to notice as described in WP:NOTPOINTY.

As I posted to you before, there's nothing wrong with you discussing your concerns with how NFCC is being applied or interpreted or trying to get feedback from others, but that's not really what you did, is it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I understand Hashim-afc's frustration and I've been meaning to bring up the fact that some federation logos are removed while others have remained (and I am not talking about the logos protected by "simple geometric shapes.") At the time of removal I advocated that national teams and its federations are inseparable thus not a "child entity," which appears as if this rule was meant for corporations and other (legal) "entities." The fact that some federations have two distinct logos for both federation and team may very well be by choice. The real questions we should ask is, can you have a federation without a national team and/or national team without a federation? If the answer is no, then I cannot see them being separate entities. Nonetheless, number 2 of WP:NFCI mentioned by Kosack should have trumped number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI at the time of discussion, which I do not recall any other compelling arguments against number 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. I also believe it caught many users off-guard as the preparation for a strong defense was lacking because the community has been so used to equating federation logos with its respective teams. With that being said, a "league" governed by a federation would be considered a "child entity" just to play into devil's advocate for WP:NFC#UUI, but again certainly not for the former. You can have a federation without a league, but not a federation without a national team. Cheers. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I think a distinction needs to be made between clubs like Moldova-Gaz Chișinău where the logo used seems to be that of sponsor Moldova-Gaz, and therefore is probably a child entity and should be removed and national teams which serve as the physical representation of a member association in FIFA / continental competition. UUI17 is too vague to allow this distinction to be made in its current state. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Such a distinction may be warranted and may actually be helpful to a degree when it comes to soccer, but it might be seen as unfair some. National federations, universities, clubs, professional teams all market themselves and their brand, don't they? So, simply saying team A can use a federation's logo because it is a national team representing the country whereas team B cannot because it is a professional/university team representing a company/school seems like a pretty tough distinction to make. Not impossible perhaps, but seems a little tricky. Non-free files must satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria for each usage. This includes NFCC#8 and NFCC#3. One of the reasons why such logos are considered to be more appropriate for federation/association articles instead of team articles seems to be that it is assumed that somewhere in the federation's article there is likely to be some sourced discussion of the logo whereas in individual team article the discussion is more likely to be about the team's accomplishments. I'm not saying this is always the case, but many team articles seem to be lists of results, etc. with maybe only a brief mention of the federation or its logo. Aren't federations the governing body for the sport in most cases and the teams under the jurisdiction of the federation? Logos used in individual team article seem to be there simply to "show" the logo rather than to discuss it. I realize there is often no discussion of these logos in many federation articles, but it seems that such a discussion would be more suitable in those articles than a individual team article. You may the same section/sources being copied and pasted into multiple individual team articles just to justify NFCC#8. In addition to NFCC#8, there is also NFCC#3; NFCC#3 does not mean a file can be used in only one article, but it does mean we should try to minimize non-free usage as much as possible. Some national teams have not only a federation article, but many individual team articles. Is there a distinction to be made between the main men and women's national teams and under-XX teams, reserve teams, Olympic teams, academy teams, beach soccer teams, futsal teams, individual season articles, results articles, etc. or are they all going to be seen as "automatically" entitled to use the article? What about the use of such logos in tables and galleries? There may be upwards of 10 uses for a single file in certain cases which is something that does not seem very minimal to me. Does the quality of the article matter or only the fact that it is about a national team? Aren't federations the governing body for the sport in most cases and the teams under the jurisdiction of the federation? Aren't all major decisions made at the federation level? If that's the case, then it does not seem to be a relationship between two equals.

Finally, a freely licensed logo is not subject to the NFCC and can pretty much be used without restriction in any article, but the same cannot be said for a non-free image because of the NFCCP. Once again, NFCC applies community-wide, so tweaking it, even ever so slightly, is probably something that should be discussed at WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... I would observe that there is much greater consensus here that UUI17 is not fit for purpose here than there ever was in the very brief discussion which led to its creation. As it is part of a guideline not a policy, until this has been firmed up at WT:NFCC, I would suggest that IAR is the correct way to behave here. However, a few points in response:

Not sure where you are getting this requirement to discuss the logo from. If you review the upload wizard process you will see it clearly stated that the purpose of adding logos is as the primary visual means of identifying an article as being related to a specific organisation. there is no need for discussion of the logo for it to be used.
Why would there need to be a distinction. whether the team is male or female, senior or junior, they are the representatives of the federation in a given competition, there is no hierarchy. What ever the team, whatever the competition, they are the federation as the federation is the member organisation competing not the team itself.
Usage in tables and galleries would continue to be non-minimal use. It seems clear to me from the fact that logos are conventionally not used next to team names in tables is indicative that there is consensus that they should not.
For galleries, I don't see how this changes the current standpoint. the purpose of logos is as the primary visual means of recognising an organisation. An old logo is by definition not as useful for this purpose. therefore the "minimal" level of useage for old logos is nil, so galleries are not desirable for non-free logos.
Not sure of the relevance of the "what is minimal?" argument. Minimal is the minimum number of uses needed to enable the logo to aid as the primary means of identification. If there are ten teams then there is justification for ten uses, if there is one then there is justification for only one. There remains no justification for logo useage in season / league / competition articles as these are only tangentially related to the organisation they describe.
Quality of article does not seem relevant to me. The only way I could see it as being relevant is as the quality of the article decreases there is in fact greater justification for the use of the logo as the primary means of identification of the subject.

Fenix down (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion part refers to WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. As for policy, WP:NFCCP is policy and it says that there is no automatic right to use a non-free image in any article and all 10 non-free content criteria need to be satisfied for each usage; moreover, the non-free use of any image can be challenged at any time by any editor by nominating it for discussion at FFD or by tagging it with a speedy template in much the same way as things are challenged at AfD, MfD, CfD and RfD. If the result of such a challenge is that the non-free use is not NFCC compliant, then it seems to me to be the reaffirmation of the NFCC so to speak. So, If the result is something that an editor does not agree with, they can is challenge the close as explained at CLOSECHALLENGE, which as far as I am aware does not involve IAR at all. It seems that what is being suggested here is that there is an automatic right to such usage simply based upon the fact that a team officially uses the logo and that the team represents its country in doing so. To me, this seems no different to a team using a logo to represent its school or a department using a logo to represent its company, etc. It also seems to imply that such usage is beyond challenge. Maybe I'm really missing something here, but it seems like this is an attempt to create an exception to the NFCC for a particular type of usage because that's the preference of this WikiProject. That's fine if that's what it is, but that's probably something that's better discussed at WT:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A few points; (1) WP:NFC#UUI #17 has been in the guideline for two years. It was accepted and added by the community. Others here are invoking duration of existence to allow these use of logos. If that's allowable, then the duration of #17 points to it being community consensus. You can not invalidate it or insist on clarification before allowing it to be applied without starting a new discussion to do so at WT:NFC. (2) Local consensus can not override community wide consensus. See WP:CONLEVEL. This project can not decide to not allow the guideline to not be applied to articles within the project's purview. (3) The idea that #17 applies only to corporations is false. #17 has been referenced across many article types. Further, a national football association is a type of corporation anyway, so the point is moot. One of the ways that #17 has been used in sports articles is removing logos from season articles of teams. Another way is in non-primary teams within a football club (example). (4) To the specific issue here; I have no stance at this time. I'm considering it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the link at the very top showing how this clause came about? Aside from it being something essentially created by BetaCommand, which to me just rings alarm bells straight away:

Guidelines can be invalidated per WP:IAR, they are not policy.
The NFC guideline is so long that the fact that a two line clause as point 17 in a subsection has remained is no evidence that there is no opposition to it.
Local consensus is not overriding the guideline, the thread which added it specifically notes a lack of consensus and a BOLD action inserting it. Given the lack of people actively involved in NFC, I'm not surprised there was no challenge.
The original discussion was clearly aimed at corporations, there is one throwaway comment about Benfica in the whole discussion
You seem to be missing the point that the team is not separate from the association but is the association, as it is the association that competes as a member of the organising body of a given competition. The team is not the member, it is the representative of the association.

I'm not saying that logos must stay and that UUI17 has no merit, merely that the pointy actions that started this are not the way to go about things, that a brief chat followed by a bold action to bury a clause in the middle of a large, rambling guideline is by no means indication of sufficient consensus for that element of the guideline to hold any real water. What is needed is a wider community discussion by people who actually use these images to establish true consensus one way or the other. You are completely right though about season articles, no logos should be used there as they are not articles about a club / nation, but about a period of time. Fenix down (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Who the proposal was brought by is immaterial. It was accepted as community consensus and has been in the guideline for two years. It is the guideline. If you don't like the guideline, I invite you to start an RfC to change it. WP:IAR doesn't grant the privilege to ignore accepted community standards in contravention of WP:CONLEVEL. That a guideline is long doesn't invalidate any section of it. Sorry. That's like saying because WP:NFCC is long, #10c doesn't apply and we can ignore it. Huh? The guideline has been used for more than corporations. Besides which, as I've noted, football associations are a form of corporation. Sorry. Regardless, all of these points are moot. They're not the central issue. We can throw policy and guideline links at each other all day long. Let me short cut this for us both; You think I'm flat wrong, and I think you're flat wrong. Can we agree on that? Ok, with all that fluff out of the way, the central point remains; are they allowed or are they not? Keep the discussion on that issue and that issue alone. There's no need to try to invalidate community consensus and trying to play one policy off of another. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I just wonder how they deal with File:Banco Santander.svg. Matthew_hk t c 22:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but the same user removing women's team logos because – in his opinion – they are mere "child entities" of the male teams is equally dubious. 90.213.56.6 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If logos are to continue to be left off, then again, why do they still remain on certain national team articles as per my above mention @Marchjuly? This ruling been implemented half*** across articles and has yet to be resolved. If we cannot be consistent with the ruling, then what was the point? You may have your own reasons, who knows, but I do not think anyone wants to even go there and pick up from where you had left off. Myself, I am still confused about this whole thing. Savvyjack23 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I struggle to see why this creates such a fuss. "The guideline is very clear: The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." That doesn't relate to national teams. Those crests are as much the associations' branding as their different national teams' branding . Every official match they played, they have those crest on their shirts. An example of an entity's logo being misused for a child of more precisely related entity, is Great Britain Olympic football team using the logo of the entire Great Britain Olympic delegation, while the football team's crest actually looked like this. T v x1 21:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

May I ask, seeing as I'm quite unfamiliar with these discussions, what does it take for this discussion to end? I mean, we have got so many users who agree that the no.17 rule does not apply to national teams, users including Hashim-afc, Kosack, Joseph2302, Fenix down, Kareldorado, Savvyjack23, Hammersoft, Tvx1 and possibly Vaselineeeeeeee most of which have put forward strong arguments. Meanwhile the only user who agrees with the removal of the logos here is Marchjuly (who is the user who first started listing logos for discussion but for some reason only listed a few random ones like Gabon, Iraq, Brazil and Lithuania and not bothering to list all the other ones which has ruined those pages). So what actually needs to happen for the consensus to be reached? Because it seems like this discussion is sort of just continuing aimlessly. Thanks, Hashim-afc (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not familiar with ending discussions, forum topics or reviews. Maybe an editor who is into this can 'temporarily freeze' this discussion, until someone has firm reasons to re-open it? Kareldorado (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

By what was said here, there seems to be a consensus to keep the logos. Usually the discussions here just end when a consensus seems to be reached. That being said, Iraq, Brazil, etc should all have logos as well to keep with consistency, and same with the women's pages. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 12:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hashim-afc, you can always put a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. T v x1 15:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Please do not presume to put words into my mouth. I did not say I agreed with keeping them. In fact, I'm more inclined now to not keeping them when there is a parent entity over all the teams, and the teams use that parent entity logo. That's precisely the situation WP:NFC#UUI #17 addresses. Also Hashim, attacking Marchjuly for supposedly ruining pages. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars; If you're not comfortable with people mercilessly editing what you've done, don't edit here. Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith; do not presume to ascribe malice to what Marchjuly has done. There's nothing of the sort. Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks; comment on the discussion points, not the contributor. In short, knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is a community-wide policy, so any changes to it or how it is being interpreted should be discussed at its talk page WT:NFCC as Hammersoft has posted above. Hammersoft did start a discussion about this there, so it would probably best for those who wish to change the policy to comment there per WP:CONLEVEL. As Super Nintendo Chalmers posted above, there should probably be input sought from others. This type of usage has been discussed quite a number of times at WP:NFCR and WP:FFD. There have been other editors besides myself who have expressed that they feel this type of use is not allowed by the NFCC. These discussions have for the most part been closed by administrators who felt that the removal of these images were in accordance with policy. The earliest I could find was Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 55#File:Bhutan FA.png which was about a month after No. 17 was added to WP:NFC#UUI. Three editors, including Fenix down, participated in that discussion and all three agreed that the file should be removed from the team articles. The discussion was closed by an admin, but the file was removed by Fenix down [24] and [25] and [26]. So, this interpretation started being applied almost two years ago. I have no problem with this being further discussed, but I think the best place to do that is on the policy's talk page, not here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Also @Hashim-afc:, the idea that "no.17 rule does not apply to national team" is false. We do not create special exemptions all over the project where various guidelines and/or policies do not apply. There is no list for such exemptions. There is a reason for that. If we had such, it would be virtually impossible to manage the project. There's also an issue of Wikipedia:Manual of Style; we do things consistently across the project so as to present ourselves in as professional manner as possible. Manuals of style are very, very common in every type of publication in the world today. That's why we have one. We can no more allow #17 to not apply here than we can allow say any other policy doesn't apply here, because you know, national teams are special. Either #17 exists or it does not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: No, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. The discussion we are having here is indeed whether or not #17 applies to national teams. Do national teams count as child entities of the FA? Do national teams lack their own branding? They are the questions we are discussing here. Nobody is trying to make an exemption, we are just discussing whether or not the rule actually applies to national team pages or not, correct me if I'm wrong. Also I'm not attacking Marchjuly and I respect his/her work on Wikipedia but it is clear to everyone that what he/she has done has caused a major problem with national teams on wiki. He/she should have listed all the non-free national team logos rather than just certain ones because now we have a few national team pages with no logos and the rest with logos which is silly and in my opinion has ruined those pages. I'm free to speak my opinion and am not doing so in a malicious way. Also I apologise if you believe I put words in your mouth, I assumed you agreed based on when you said "My inclination is yes, they should be allowed" but if you meant something else with that then apologies. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that I am acting unilaterally or mass removing images from articles. I am not claiming to have never removed non-free files from articles, but really try to only do so where it's clear that NFCC is not satisfied. As I posted above, there have been quite a few previous discussions regarding this type of usage, some such as Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 56#File:Football Association of Malaysia crest.svg which go back almost two years and involve other editors besides myself. So, it's not clear to me that everyone agrees that such usage complies with the NFCC. You seem to be aware of the discussion Hammersoft started at WT:NFCC since your quoting something he posted there, but you have yet to comment there. Any comments you have which may help resolve this would be appreciated there as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm not implying that you mass removed images from articles, I'm implying the exact opposite. You only listed images from a few articles for discussion rather than all of them. I am sorry if my explaining is not too good but what I'm trying to ask is why did you only list certain ones (e.g. Iraq, Gabon, Lithaunia) when you (surely) knew that there were many many many other cases of the exact same thing happening but you did not list those ones for discussion? The Iraq, Gabon and Lithaunia logos are exactly the same as almost all other national team logos (for example Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Wales logos etc) in the fact that they are non-free logos with rationales for all the child entities. The logos you did list for discussion don't dissatisfy NFCC any more than the logos that you did not list, if that makes sense. I can understand that you probably didn't want to bother listing them all because there are so so many, but in that case (in my opinion) you should not have just chosen a few here and there to remove but should have instead started a discussion here first. I accept that my mass removal of logos was wrong but in my opinion you are also in the wrong as well. Sorry if my explaining is bad. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

NFCR used to be the community-wide venue for discussing concerns about the non-free use of specific files prior, but that now takes place at FfD (NFCR was merged into FfD last year). As I stated there have been quite a number of discussions at NFCR/FfD regarding the application of No. 17 regarding its application, not only to soccer logos but also reagarding other types of logos. I did not initiate (i.e., "list") each and every one of these discussions. I did not list the Lithaunia file for discussion, another editor did, but I added a comment to it like I've added comments to many other FfD discussions started by other editors. I didn't close any of these FfD discussions and others were free to comment either way. The administrator who closes an FfD discussion does so it good faith in a manner they believe is consistent with the NFCC per WP:FFDAI. I've read there are over 5,000,0000 articles on Wikipedia with many more being added each day. A large number of these are probably not suitable for article status per WP:GNG, but these are being dealt with by various editors one at a time. I have also read there are over 500,000 non-free images uploaded to Wikipedia and there are files being added daily. Quite a large number of these, unfortunately, are being used in a way that probably does not comply with the NFCC. Mass nominating large numbers of non-free files for removal in one lump sum noination seems to be just as disruptive as mass removing large numbers of files from articles in my opinion. So, they are discussed and being dealt with by various editors one at a time. The use of a non-free file in one article does not automatically mean that particular use is automatically NFCC compliant or that the use of a similar file in another article is automatically NFCC compliant. The fact that a non-free file has been used in a particular way for a long time also does not automatically mean it is NFCC compliant. It may take a discussion at FfD to figure out whether said use is NFCC compliant.

A broader more sweeping change such as the removal of No. 17 or how it should be interpreted is something that should be discussed at WT:NFCC, not any particular Wikiproject's page, simply because NFCC applies community-wide and not just to soccer related articles. The application of No. 17 has come up before here at WT:FOOTY Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#Badges of reserve teams and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 96#National Team Badges being removed. I did not participate in the former, but as a result of the latter I started a discussion requesting clarification of this at No. 17 and invited members of FOOTY there to comment. The only person who did was Fenix down. The discussion I started got archived with No. 17 left as is. Hammersoft has now started another discussion at WT:NFCC, which is where these concerns would best be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Could you please clarify what part of WP:CONLEVEL is unclear to you, or in very least what part of that policy you think does not apply to national football teams? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To all of you, we're discussing a WP:Guideline here, NOT a policy. T v x1 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported parameters in Template:WikiProject Football

we have tracking in Template:WikiProject Football which flags any parameters which are currently in use, but are not supported by the template (see Category:Pages using WikiProject Football with unknown parameters). now that this category has had a chance to fill up, we are finding many typos, but many non-typos which correspond to unsupported parameters. the question is, what should we do with these unsupported parameters? I have flagged a few common ones, and temporarily removed them from the tracking, but we need to decide what to do with them long term. The ones that I have flagged thus far are |Asia= (analogue of |Africa=), |Austria=, and |Azerbaijan=. but, I imagine that I am going to find dozens more as we work through the category. so should we (1) leave these in the banner invocations on the individual talk pages, (2) remove them from the banner invocations on the individual talk pages, or (3) add some of them to the banner? over the long term, we can't just keep them in the tracking category, since this tracking category is meant to be emptied. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd go for 3, add them to banner --SuperJew (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

so, this means we create tasks forces for all of them? that's going to be a lot of new task forces. Frietjes (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So these articles which are currently unsupported parameters, who looks after them? --SuperJew (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

this project looks after articles tagged with the banner for this project. the question is what to do with banners which are tagged with non-existing taskforces (e.g., Mexico) Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say add to banner, and if there isn't a task force link to this project until there is. --SuperJew (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is no corresponding taskforce then remove the tags from the banner. Giant Snowman 07:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, remove. If ever needed i bet they are easily found and recreated by a bot. -Koppapa (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

okay, so my plan for something like |Mexico= would be to remove it, but make sure there is also a {{WikiProject Mexico}}. this would allow them to be found by searching for the intersection of the transclusions of this template and the transclusions of {{WikiProject Mexico}}. clearing this category should be fairly easy since there are only about 600 entries (which is pretty remarkable since there are 280,600 total transclusions). Frietjes (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

should we add Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Finland task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Portugal task force or are these officially dead? Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Any pending changes reviewers around here?

I'm a pending changes reviewer. Panionios F.C. has 28 changes pending, by a couple of different editors. Wikipedia:Reviewing#Reviewing_edits_by_multiple_users says

If the pending edits were made by multiple editors, bear in mind there may have been a good edit that has been removed by subsequent vandalism. Do not rely solely on what you see in the "pending review" diff page, instead:

Check the page history regardless of whether the version you see contains vandalism.
Review each series of edits by individual users from the page history (diff from the latest accepted revision to the last revision by the first user, and so on). Undo any edit that is vandalism, a BLP violation, or unacceptable according to reviewing criteria. Each undo will create a new edit under your username, but will not be automatically accepted. Leave acceptable edits in place, unreviewed.
Once you are satisfied that all inappropriate edits have been undone, you will be left with acceptable edits. Review the most recent pending edit as you would in case of a single user and you're done.

I don't know ~~soccer~~ football (sorry, I'm American ;-) very well, and I certainly don't know the structure of the tables on that page, so I can't tell whether many of the changes are vandalism or not.

The latest change makes an obvious correction in table format. The one before that just moves a column break. But the 26 oldest pending changes, all made in 24 minutes by the same IP editor 2.86.3.101, constitute massive changes that I don't know how to check, and all unreferenced. Can anyone here tell, and hopefully revert any that are vandalism?

Please {{Ping}} me if you want to discuss it with me. --Thnidu (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)