Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 105

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 103

→

Career stats

Can somebody with more patience please explain to @Wshjackson: why having first-team stats in the career table, to match the infobox, even if there were 0 appearances, is what we do (page in question = Alex Kiwomya but wider application). Giant Snowman 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that @GiantSnowman: does not understand the concept of a reserve player/academy player is not automatically a first-team player of the parent-team after going on loan. In the case of Alex Kiwomya, he has never been promoted to first-team stats even though he has gone on loan multiple times. User:Wshjackson User talk:Wshjackson 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that the reader doesn't know that Mr Kiwomya hasn't appeared for Chelsea's first team, and we should be showing them. After all, when he wasn't out on loan, he was available for selection... The infobox shows the reader that he hasn't played league football for Chelsea, but including zeroes (or dashes, where there were no matches of that type for the player to play in) in the stats table is how we illustrate he hasn't played in any other competitions either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he was at a) at Chelsea for those seasons and b) made 0 appearances for Chelsea, so the stats box should reflect both of those facts.--Echetus Xe 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

If I could just make my case. For the readers (if they did look/read his page), would notice that he was never promoted to first team stats while there is a line about how he was in the U18, U21, etc. squads. Whenever a player is promoted from academy to first-team, there is always some type of mentioning. Even in his citation for the career stats does not recognize him as a Chelsea first-team player. The infobox only recognizes that Chelsea in his senior career because of the loans he had as an academy. Any academy players is "available for selection" for the first-team, but I believe unless they were selected, it would be confused, pointless, and just cluttering the page. I could list many academy players that were "available for selection", but later went on loan much like Alex Kiwomya and their stat section reflects the same style as how Alex Kiwomya's page is set up. If you guys are thinking about the reader's best interest, I would suggest to keep the page as it is currently, and without the Chelsea stats.Wshjackson (talk) (01:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

But if somebody was looking at the career stats table, who is he on loan from? Giant Snowman 06:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're making assumptions that aren't always warranted. The stats table is supposed to be an illustration for reference of the player's appearances (or lack of); it shouldn't require well-developed, up-to-date, prose that the reader has a) read; and b) drawn all the correct inferences from, before they can understand it. We're writing for the intelligent general reader, but one who isn't necessarily well up on the ways of the big English football clubs, or English football in general, or soccer at all. Leaving Chelsea out begs two questions: as GS mentions above, who was he on loan from? and if he's a Chelsea player, why doesn't it show how many times he's played for them? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So it seems that you guys want the Career statistics to be a source for people to tell where the loan are from. But why would that even be necessary for readers if the infobox and the first line of each page states where the player plays and from which team they are on loan from. I honestly believe that it is just pointless clutter by stating seasons where even the official team does not recognize the player in the squad. My view on this subject would be different if Alex was at least on bench for a single game of those seasons, but he wasn't. If you guys would like to change the stats to include their parent team as well, feel free. But do expect a list of every player on loan that is on the same/similar boat as Alex, and I expect that all of them would be adjusted as well. Wshjackson (talk) (14:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

Sigh, he's still at it. Can an uninvolved admin please review his edits and enforce the clear consensus here. Giant Snowman 20:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While I understand both side (Wshjackson & GiantSnowman), in his stats, it should only reflect where he was at in the first-team. He was clearly no included as a first-team player before leaving on loan. There should not be a 2016/17 season line for Chelsea in his career stats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelseafc1129 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Wshjackson: are you going to admit that this new account (contributing here with only its third edit!) is you or are we going to have to go through the ballache of a SPI? Giant Snowman 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I disagree. If the first line in a table starts with him being on loan, that's incredibly confusing, IMO. He's clearly a first team player now, albeit not at his parent club, so having a line for his parent club in the stats table just for this season makes sense to me. – Pee Jay 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@User:GiantSnowman Huh? No? I gave up, it can stay the way it is. I have only been updating the page of today's game. Wshjackson (talk) (21:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC))

I agree with PeeJay. It would seem confusing to list them both when he was obviously playing only at one team. Examples at Sebastian Giovinco, Claudio Marchisio and Alessandro Matri. When updating career stats boxes I only list the club which he is loaned to for that season. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: I suggest you re-read PeeJay's comments - "having a line for his parent club in the stats table just for this season makes sense to me." Giant Snowman 06:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah. Well, to me, I don't really see the need as for most loan players, they are only playing at that club for the season and not for the team that is loaning him out. I don't know if this player's situation is different in that he possibly could have played, but most don't, which is why I haven't seen the practice you are mentioning very frequently. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Take Oliver Norwood as an example. He never played for Manchester United's first team, but played on loan for three clubs before a permanent move elsewhere. Why shouldn't he have lines for Manchester United for each season he was on loan somewhere else? After all, he had to be on loan from somewhere; you can't be on loan to another club without a parent club. – Pee Jay 11:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia football news article

Has anyone seen this story? Whether you can trust what The Sentinel reports is another matter...--Echetus Xe 15:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and while you're at it try and beat my score of 86.--Echetus Xe 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

2015 League of Ireland Premier Division

I have never seen a section for the results in European Competitions in a domestic league articles before. Please take a look at 2015 League of Ireland Premier Division. When I removed that section I was told you vandalised article by removing the section about Europe which is totally relevant and I was reverted with edit summary reverted bad editing by QED327. The same editor delibirately removed module sports table and replaced it with the depreciated template form (first modifying Template:2015 League of Ireland Premier Division table and now just inserting template form directly in article. Could someone please take a look. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As to the European results, it's not something I'd previously considered, but I don't actually see why they shouldn't be there. Qualification for continental competition is obviously so important that it needs parameters in the infobox and a great wide (mostly empty) column and colour coding in the league table, so it does seem a little inconsistent if we can't mention how they got on when they actually played in it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. The article is on a specific league and performance within that, European competition is a completely separate tournament. I don't for example, see national cup results in there, and obviously not for the reason that it is only a tangentially related tournament. I think Struway's comment is misguided, the reason for the european competition in the info box is because the right to compete in Europe the following season is a reward for performance in the league. I mean, can you imagine what a premier league season article would look like with every teams CL and UEFA Cup matches, group tables, etc, recorded? Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You're assuming I'd want endless tables, footballboxes and the like. I wouldn't. What I'm saying is that I don't see why such an article shouldn't mention how its teams got on in European competition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it like that. I can agree that a quick paragraph of prose would be useful. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

National cup competitions have their own separate seasonal articles. Plus unlike EPL, La Liga clubs, LOI clubs have historically only ever played a handful of European games perseason. It's hardly an imposition. Djln Djln (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

So what, the results relate to a completely different competition. Similar to my comments in the thread above, rather than fill up the article with tempaltes and stats, a simple couple of sentences of sourced prose would be preferable and take up a lot less space, particularly given, and I'm sure you must have noticed this, it is not conventional to do this in any other season article. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have recently been tidying up articles on League of Ireland seasons. While doing this I found several versions of league tables and I simply chose the one that I found the easiest to follow - fb style template. I believe it has the advantage of actually looking like a league table when you go to edit it. In the edit section I found the module sports table version difficult to follow and over complicated. It also looks nothing like a league table in edit section. I believe Wiki should make it as simple as possible to edit. When I edited the 2015 LoI Premier Division template, Qed237 fired off a ridiculous accusation of vandalism and declared he would have me blocked. A total overreaction if ever and not particularly helpful. Qed237 then started an edit war by removing a perfectly legitimate section on Europe. This is vandalism clear and simple. Similar sections have been included in other LOI season articles without issue. Djln Djln (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that it exists somewhere else doesn't necessarily make it correct, so an assessment of it is still legitimate. Personally I think it isn't correct to include Europe matches in any league season pages as the league season page pertains to information about that league in that season. The performance of the teams (who happen to also play in the league) in a European competition has no direct bearing on the league, but they should definitely be included in the European championship page and in the club's season page. I understand that if it is the first time you come across the module it might seem harder to understand than the fb style template, but if you try it out a bit (I'd suggest in the sandbox), I'm sure you'll find it's simple to use and actually find that it's even easier to edit with it. --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, I disagree on both counts. I do regard it to be appropriate to include a limited amount of European fixtures on some seasonal article. I found the module sports table to be a nightmare to edit and follow. Have already tried using it before. Djln Djln (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Season articles are about the... Season, yes. Nothing more. No cup, Supercup, league cup, Europe or whatever. Include those matches in a 2015 Irish football article. Kante4 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

DjlnDjln, could you please expand why you think it is appropriate to include a limited amount of European fixtures on some seasonal articles? What is the limit? On which seasonal articles is it appropriate and on which not?

As mentioned above LOI clubs have only ever played a handful games in Europe per season. So I think it ok to include them. LOI clubs don't have as many individual club season articles either. However English, Spanish, German, French clubs play many more games. It would excessive to include all their games.

Also, could you point out what specifically you feel makes it hard to edit and follow the module? Perhaps it can be improved, and from my experience users such as Qed237 are happy to help and improve the module. --SuperJew (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I just find the whole module is overcomplicated. Minor tampering won't solve issue. The fb template is so much clearer and easier to follow. Djln Djln (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the League of Ireland, results in other competitions shouldn't belong here. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the comment above. The season article is about the domestic league and what teams do on other tournament belong on their individual article or the season article for the nation (such as 2015–16 in English football but for Ireland). Qed237 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The European results of Irish clubs could be included in 2015 in Republic of Ireland football. And as far as league tables go, the old style is depreciated for a reason. Using the module with Lua has numerous advantages, and it is fairly easy to understand if you take a few minutes to get acquainted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

All articles must have a scope. It may not necessarily be defined as such. In this case, the scope is self-evident in the article title and information about matches played in European competition are therefore out of scope. On the other hand, 2015 in Republic of Ireland football may justifiably include European matches within its scope as the title infers that the article is about international football involving the Republic, and is not limited to a specific domestic competition as is 2015 League of Ireland Premier Division. All editors really should think about scope when writing or updating any article. If the scope is being widened or narrowed, then maybe the article title should be changed. BoJó | talk 18:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the consensus here that European matches are outside the scope of a domestic league season article, I have removed them all. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fenix, that is so helpful. I am so glad the time I spent editing those articles was not wasted. It is always good to read the opinions of people you know absolutely nothing about the League of Ireland and then let them have their say. This article from RTE described last nights game between Dundalk and Legia Warsaw as "the biggest night in Dundalk and the League of Ireland’s history" yet in the same week Wiki decides we cannot mention it in the 2016 seasonal article. Fantastic decision. Wiki editors here have now demonstrated that they have as much common sense as an Olympic boxing judge. Djln Djln (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Spurs Hall of Fame template

I felt this is far too big a template, but I am not sure how to edit it down to make it a more manageable size. Maybe someone can have a look or a go at fixing it. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does it need to be done by year? Waste of space. Just order it alphabetically. Giant Snowman 20:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't create it, mind you, I didn't have a look who did, maybe I should of done and ask whoever did it. Govvy (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It was created by @Beatpoet:, who has created a whole heap of 'Hall of Fame' templates, including some of questionable notability... Giant Snowman 20:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of James Milner

James Milner, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Uruguay national under-21 football team

Is there no u21 team page? I was editing Alex Pritchard page and noticed the international section had a red link, I wasn't sure if I had the page title right, or if I missed something, or if there is no article for the under-21 team? Govvy (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct. There are articles to U17, U20 and U23 (Olympic) teams thiough. Kante4 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After re-reading, I changed it to under-20 Govvy (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

friendly would be a messy for matching which team, Uruguay could have age specific U21, U22 team as part of a youth ladder, but it may save to assume the same as England U20. Matthew_hk t c 23:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of United Kingdom national football team

United Kingdom national football team, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian articles

Could someone please take a look at FC Zirka Kropyvnytskyi, 2016–17 Ukrainian Premier League, Template:FC Zirka Kirovohrad managers, Template:Ukrainian Premier League managers and possibly something else I might have missed. An IP keeps on making unsourced edits despite several warnings (they just remove them). Qed237 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please could someone block user Qed237 for the hidden vandalism and IP user abuse. In FC Zirka Kropyvnytskyi, he restored Ilya Blyznyuk as a main coach incorrecly (five times with edit war!) although Blyznyuk was a main coach for Zirka in 2012-13 only! Today the club have a new coach, Dario Hernan Drudi, the official site announced, another UKR sports media informed, and related changes in the aricles was made. There are no any problem with exception of Qed237' brains. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Qed237: The IP's changes appear to be correct – Drudi is the new manager of Zirka Kropyvnytskyi (I just googled it). Shouldn't you check before reverting dated information back into articles? Not everyone is familiar with how to source information – it would be far more helpful if you would add a reference yourself. Number 5 7 17:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I cant be expected to go around and look for sources for other editors. He was told several times to add source but ignored it and removed all messages at his talkpage. Qed237 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Why on earth are you reverting changes if you haven't even bothered to check whether the information is true or not? Number 5 7 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content. It is not my job to find source for other editors. Qed237 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with unsourced content – not everything needs a reference. Reverting new information without even checking whether it is true is verging on disruptive behaviour (particularly given that you were restoring information that was several years out-of-date), so I would advise you to stop. Number 5 7 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As I can see, it's a not the only revert of absolutely correct information made by Qed during the last day. The next correct edits were reverted by him in the same way (I check only a few last edits). [1] [2] [3] It's a pity but it's a very destructive behavior. Thank you, Number57, for help. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

And again, revert of the correct information (available on the club website). [4] 95.133.211.190 (talk) 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: And persistently adding unsourced content is not disruptive? Remomeber wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias are based on facts. Qed237 (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Persistent, yes. But it only got to that stage because of your knee-jerk reverting. The whole dispute goes back to you not bothering to check whether the new information was true. Number 5 7 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Or is this edit wrong? Then a lot of experienced editors are in trouble as this happens all the times. Unsourced contents about BLPs can be removed. Qed237 (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that was wrong because you didn't bother checking whether it was actually true or not. You could have simply googled it and added a reference if you were being constructive. Number 5 7 20:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Apperently edits like this is disruptive. We cant remove unsourced content without User:Number 57 saying it is dirsuptive behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Admit that you were wrong (A block was more than appropiate) and don't start acting like a kid. Because that's what it sounds like... Kante4 (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: I am wrong when I removed unsourced content for a BLP? Good to know for future edits, now I never have to worry about sources, just add anything. Qed237 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Like a kid, as i said. Does not show a high level of personality... Kante4 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me what happened to WP:UNSOURCED? It says clearly that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So it is not Qed237's duty to check if it is true. --Jaellee (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

He could use {{citation needed}} instead of removing the each IP user' edit. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

He could, but he doesn't have to. And by the way, why couldn't the IP be bothered to provide a source? --Jaellee (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

For example, see [5] the numbers of players in the infoboxes have no any sources (official club webpages used as source by default if I correct). And, note, in the edits like this [6] (his revert of my updates), user Qed237 replaced the new correct "unsourced" information by old incorrect "unsourced" information! 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The burden lies on the editor who wants the change to prove it. And even if it is only a shirt number then it does not hurt to add a URL to the edit comment to make it clear that is is not just speculation, especially if the editor is an IP. I cannot count the times where IP's (or very new editors) have changed correct entries (without source) to false entries. If you look for example at the edit history of Julian Draxler, there was nothing but vandalism from IP's the last few days. I don't know how often he was already playing for Arsenal. Checking if any those edits is true is just wasted time. I do not want to spend my time for Wikipedia on checking edits that are 99% bogus. Give the other editors a chance to check your claims with minimal effort for them and I'm sure your edits will be accepted without problems. --Jaellee (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you. Add a URL to the edit comment. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

At least I add those URLs if the the topic is not big enough to warrant an inline citation and normally that's okay (I have rarely reverts). --Jaellee (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jaellee: Thank you, I was just about to give up on wikipedia. Seems like editors can do whatever they want sometimes. User:Number 57 takes every chance he can to attack me (and has done in the past) without seeing the real issue. I guess questioning him as an admin would not be a good idea. Was I lazy? Yes, I was. Was I correct inm removing unsourced inforamtion? Yes, I was. @Kante4: Call it childish if you want, but it is an encyclopedia. I can not trust unsourced information, it might as well be incorrect. Qed237 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57 and Kante4: The answers at ANI was also very clear. For example the closing statement Edits should always be Sourced with Reliable Sources as well as the other comments. To see an admin disregard this and attack the experienced editor is not good. Yes, I was lazy but that does not mean it is right to keep adding unsourced information. I have my doubts regarding Number 57 who has been attacking me in the past. I thought admins where more neutral and trying to solve issues instead. Qed237 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Seems like more editors agree with me and removed the same content (diff). Qed237 (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be typical of recent User:Qed237's edits. I experienced similar issues with him last week. There is no reasoning with him. When I criticised his behaviour for reversing my edits, he tried to get me blocked. Djln Djln (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: Stop kidding yourself and just WP:DROPTHESTICK. You edited directly against consensus before turning to personal attacks, not even clo9se to the same situation. If you keep on with this harassment, you may easily get blocked. Qed237 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I am not harassing you. I admit I perhaps crossed the line a little last week, but your behaviour was hardly exemplary either. I have a right to express an opinion about your edits, just like other editors have here, without been threatened by you. Situations are very similar. You removed edits you disagreed with and then accused other editors of being vandals. Pot calling kettle if ever. Are you going to have us all blocked ? I am guessing you still have no authority to block anybody. Djln Djln (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

MoS of club season

As club need to submit squad list to UEFA and their domestic FA respectively, with different cap/quota, It is reasonable to have two squad list in the season article (such as 2010–11 Juventus F.C. season) Is that the practice was removed from MoS, as a face no reason removal / vandal on my edit of adding two set of squad to the season article of 2016–17 U.S. Sassuolo Calcio season. Matthew_hk t c 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC) player can eligible to domestic but not UEFA (or vice versa). Matthew_hk t c 23:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I see it as unnecessary. User:Italia2006 is the user he's talking about..not a vandal. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Extra note. English Premier League also have a similar quota system with UEFA on homegrown player (for UEFA, 8 min. including 4 trained by club), foreigner (in UEFA, 17 max because 25 minus 8) and reserve (U21 players). Then is that excessive information state on footnote of one single squad list for the inclusion and exclusion? Players can under contract but unable to play neither domestic nor continental due to quota was reached. Matthew_hk t c 00:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

observed on 2016–17 Chelsea F.C. season. Matthew_hk t c 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

source on English homegrown player rule and "Regulations of the UEFA Europa League 2015-18 Cycle 2016/17 Season" (PDF). UEFA. 1 May 2016. Retrieved 28 July 2016.. Matthew_hk t c 00:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

also 2016–17 Real Madrid C.F. season observed extras footnote to explain La Liga non-EU quota on themselves. Matthew_hk t c 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, just no. Italia2006 (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is a MoS discussion, as i observed the section existed in 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season, just absent in 2014–15 season article. Matthew_hk t c 00:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

may be a bit original research to identify which one is home grown players (such as in Inter Milan case, it is obvious to spot but it sometimes announced by the club officially). It is a nice piece of information for home grown players as Serie A also had that rule ~~(but not capping the max. number of players in squad, need to dig out the original script)~~ source Matthew_hk t c 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to point out which quota each player meets, but I do wonder if it's worth adding notes to say "this player is in the club's Premier League squad" or "this player is in the club's Champions League squad". How they qualify isn't particularly encyclopaedic or verifiable, but whether they're included in one of those squads is an important fact. – Pee Jay 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

i just pissed off someone think the players were included or excluded in European squad was not important. Matthew_hk t c 04:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have one squad list which has a column or something to indicate which players are also in the cup squad.--Echetus Xe 08:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think about it. For Real Madrid the non-EU column was less verifiable , but a column for yes/no in European squad sound more reasonable and easy to verify by citation. Matthew_hk t c 15:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be a dedicated column. You could just add a superscript (e.g. ^CL for the Champions League squad) to indicate which players are in what squad. – Pee Jay 16:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. [7] Matthew_hk t c 03:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Help desk question

There is a football related question at the Help Desk here. The articles don't seem notable, if someone could help that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait - I requested that help and am' willing to wait for the merger am' gonna perform! Varun FEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 17:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Squad templates turned into redirects

User:Secret Agent Julio is turning squad templates into redirects (for example: [8]) and removing them in articles. --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of these lower division squad templates are outdated/not updated regularly and have few links, as most players are not notable, nor will they become unless the club is promoted. I am not sure what the "criteria" is, but most of these templates do not seem necessary. Although maybe the VfB Stuttgart II template is alright, it seemed better than most. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio: redirecting is not the correct way of dealing with them - that is WP:TFD. Giant Snowman 18:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I now realise that a TFD is a better option, initially I redirected thinking that maybe eventually there would be enough links, but for the time being some can probably be deleted. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we actually have a guideline about which teams should have squad templates or not? Is it based on how many blue-links? Team's professional level (pro, semi-pro, amateur)? Tier team plays in? --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's generally a bad idea below fully-pro level as otherwise it tempts people to create redlinks and articles on non-notable players. Number 5 7 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I would say that it should be aligned with Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues as this also drives the notability of players. Many of the squad templates have been created when the club played in a fully professional league but subsequently relegated into a lower league. Kq-hit (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus, unless I am mistaken, is to decide the notability of squad templates on a case-by-case basis. A template that has a substantial number of blue links, despite the team not competing in a fully pro league, clearly has practical value, and should therefore be retained. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Matty, it's all to do with blue links (it's a navigation template, so you need to actually be able to navigate between articles!) - but that will obviously be rarer as you drop down the leagues. Giant Snowman 20:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I decided to compile a list of the lower division squad templates, opinions on what templates might still be uesful? All clubs are in the Regionalliga (4th tier), except for Tennis Borussia Berlin, who are in the Oberliga (5th tier). Numbers are from late July so they may be a bit off. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Club	Blue links	Total players	Percent
Alemannia Aachen	5	22	0.23
SV Babelsberg 03	3	20	0.15
Berliner AK 07	7	27	0.26
FC Viktoria 1889 Berlin	7	22	0.32
SV Wacker Burghausen	6	22	0.27
FC Energie Cottbus	5	21	0.24
Borussia Dortmund II	9	26	0.35
SV Elversberg	13	25	0.52
Rot-Weiss Essen	8	25	0.32
FC 08 Homburg	15	26	0.58
FC Carl Zeiss Jena	9	21	0.43
KSV Hessen Kassel	3	22	0.14
TuS Koblenz	8	19	0.42
FC Viktoria Köln	12	25	0.48
SV Waldhof Mannheim	10	27	0.37
FC Bayern Munich II	5	27	0.19
Rot-Weiß Oberhausen	5	25	0.2
Kickers Offenbach	5	23	0.22
1. FC Saarbrücken	11	24	0.46
Stuttgarter Kickers	9	24	0.38
VfB Stuttgart II	12	26	0.46
SV Eintracht Trier 05	6	27	0.22
SpVgg Unterhaching	11	34	0.32
Wormatia Worms	6	24	0.25
Wuppertaler SV	6	29	0.21
Tennis Borussia Berlin^Oberliga	2	24	0.08

Thank you, User:Secret Agent Julio for compiling these statistics! I have done some spot checks against the current squads in their main articles and found the figures to be accurate. Even clubs such as Stuttgarter Kickers, FC Energie Cottbus and VfB Stuttgart II that still played in the fully professional 3. Liga last season dropped quickly in their percentage of notable players due to the player fluctuation that comes along with the relegation. Are there any existing guidelines regarding what would be a required blue link ratio? One other problem I see with keeping lower league clubs can be seen with Template:Le Mans FC squad. It has 22/23 blue links but has not been updated since 8 July 2013. Could outdated current squads be automatically flagged for deletion? Kq-hit (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Honours (for the 1,00000000th time)

Taking the recent 2016 UEFA Super Cup as the latest example, it seems the Real Madrid official profile for players has listed the honour in Ronaldo, Pepe, Kroos, Bale, Coentrão and Navas. None of these guys made the squad of 18, in most cases due to injury, why should they get the accolade.

Should we follow the club's M.O. or could we go in a different direction? This makes absolutely no sense (to give honour to said players, that is). Inputs please. Attentively --Be Quiet AL (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This tweet (Hurrygane posted it first) just for some more info. I was surprised about that too. Kante4 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree that it makes little sense to give them the honour if they didn't compete, but if a reliable source (such as their Real Madrid profile) includes it, then we should as well. If, however, a more neutral source (such as something directly from the UEFA Super Cup) indicated that these players did not receive the honour, then I would go with that instead. -Gopherbashi (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If the club paid for a medal for them, despite them not playing (Schwarzer's Premier League medal with Chelsea for example) then they obviously think the player did contribute, even if not directly by playing and we should include it too. --SuperJew (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Now, I can't explain why this is, but it seems that Bale may have got a medal because he was included in the official squad for the game (despite not travelling), as were Kroos and Navas. Ronaldo, Pepe and Coentrao, however, were omitted from that list. – Pee Jay 16:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Barça's website similarly credits Neymar with the 2015 Super Cup, even though he was sitting at home with the mumps. FWIW, I agree with BQAL. Wikipedia is not any club's mouthpiece; we are certainly not obligated to include something just because they do, or any source for that matter. I can accept that a squad player is capable of contributing to his team's win, even if he hasn't played a single minute, but a player who hasn't even made it to the bench for whatever reason has not won that trophy. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We should follow reliable, independent sources, and club websites are not the latter and arguably often not the former! I would be happy citing the medal to a news report with the teamsheets, but in this case I think we should at least restrict the honour to players in the squad on the day. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - official club profiles always need to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially of the club is trying to pander to a big player's ego. Giant Snowman 19:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So, we should remove them? Kante4 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a club's title should always be considered the whole squad's honour. What is the reliable, independent source that says that Pepe, Navas etc. didn't win this title as members of Real Madrid C.F.? Tkotw12 (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You'll be lucky to find a source that proves a negative. The burden of proof is to say they definitely did "win" this competition. After all, while Navas was included in the squad for the Super Cup (see here), Pepe wasn't. Bale was too, but what about Ronaldo? – Pee Jay 17:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And what excatly did Bale contribute that Ronaldo or Pepe didn't? Tkotw12 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

And where is the reliable and independent source saying that only those players nominated for the match are considered winners of the title? Tkotw12 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not contact UEFA officials, since they are shipping the medals to players who didn't travel. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Any suggestions from other editors? Kante4 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult this way. I mean, Messi's 2006 CL victory should also be deleted if that reasoning applies. Messi did not play a single second from the second leg of the round of 16 until and up to the final. Literally zero seconds. He wasn't even in the stadium. Don't come with "Messi played in the group stages and 'helped' them to qualify for the round of 16" because Ronaldo helped Real Madrid CF to qualify for the UEFA Supercup by converting the decisive penalty kick in the 2016 CL final. In the end, the question is, should Wiki decide who did or did not win something? No, not at all. UEFA provides 40 medals to the club and the club redistributes those medals in any way they like (https://twitter.com/TheCRonaldoFan/status/756938406895185921, scroll down a bit). The player's club profiles show who got and did not get a medal. So keep it simple. Add it. But I'll leave it at this lol. Wiki does not have authority over who does or does not get a medal. Clubs decide.Eren0127 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, have a look at new evidence in support of Ronaldo having a medal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo, scroll to the bottom of that huge discussion). It basically proves that C.Ronaldo has a medal (article 9 of UEFA [9]). Furthermore, Ronaldo was active in that match according to UEFA as proved by this link [10]. So PeeJay and Kante4, I guess we should include it. Also, the list provided by PeeJay includes Jese who is a PSG player, LOL. Eren0127 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone impartial please comment on this? Personally, I still haven't seen any evidence from any independent sources to say that Ronaldo (or Fabio Coentrao or any of the others) is considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. The only source we have is Real Madrid's website, and that's hardly neutral on the subject. Any references to UEFA regulations saying the winning team gets 40 medals to distribute as they wish is spurious, since we have no idea exactly how Real Madrid distributed the medals. And furthermore, dismissing UEFA's official squad list just because Jese is still included is foolhardy at best. – Pee Jay 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To reiterate the above, we need some impartial involvement on this issue. There are edit wars on the verge of starting at Neymar, Cristiano Ronaldo, Pepe (footballer, born 1983), Keylor Navas and Fábio Coentrão, and we need people to help form a consensus on the issue. How does a player qualify for an honour? Can Neymar be considered a winner of the 2016 Spanish Super Cup when he was playing at the Olympics at the time over Barcelona's victory? How about Bale and Ronaldo as winners of the UEFA Super Cup? This is not a simple issue and I doubt the fanboys on those pages will listen without some kind of outside comments. – Pee Jay 15:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Any help/comments are welcome. Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

David McMillan

I propose that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McMillan (footballer) be closed and the template at David McMillan (footballer) be removed. There is clear majority in favour of keeping article. Djln Djln (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The AfD is due to be closed tomorrow, there's no need to propose a closure here. Number 5 7 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sound Djln Djln (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice regarding splitting tournament across seasons

Bengaluru FC is participating in 2016 AFC Cup, which started in February 2016 and they'll be playing in quarter finals in September 2016. However their season (2015–16 Bengaluru FC season) ended in May 2016. So I am wondering how should this be covered? Should QF and further rounds be covered in 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season or 2015–16 Bengaluru FC season?

They'll mostly likely be playing in 2017 AFC Cup as well. If I choose to include in 2016–17 Bengaluru FC season, so should there be two entries for AFC cup in the same season? Coderzombie (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have said you should list that competition entirely in the article for the season in which it started. That way you don't run the risk of having two different instances of the same competition in the same article. – Pee Jay 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay2K3 and that's the consensus on Australian clubs' season pages (as seen with the WS Wanderers' winning campaign). --SuperJew (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks SuperJew and PeeJay2K3 for your inputs, it makes sense. I'll restrict it to one season. Coderzombie (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is Dendy Sulistyawan notable?

Is Dendy Sulistyawan notable, on the Bahasa Indonesia language page it exists and it mentions that he has made top flight appearances, and these are sourced with statistics from the Indonesian language Goal.com page. However there are no sources at all in English that he appeared in a professional league, and his soccerway page turns up blank. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I might add that this is a common problem for Indonesian-related football articles since the Indonesia Super League folded in 2014.Inter&anthro (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Reto Ziegler

I wasn't sure but I thought there was a rule against use of flag icons in such a way as in the honours section on Ziegler's page. Govvy (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at MOS:FLAGS --SuperJew (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

There is. I've reformatted the section. Thanks for pointing it out. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth United F.C.

The article on Plymouth United F.C. is currently dominated by a Sunday League team of the same name, but which appears to have no relationship with the original Plymouth United. My attempts to remove the Sunday league team from the article were reverted without explanation, so I'd be interested in anyone else's opinion on whether the article should remain as it is, or needs to be pared down. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 21:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the inclusion for modern teams, but to start with they should be at a certain non-league level and be an FA registered club for inclusion on wiki, so no Sunday league team should have any article. As for the actual article, it should only be about the team formed in 1944 and not the 2011 version. Govvy (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I decided to Prod it. Govvy (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Patrick McEleney and Ronan Finn

Articles on both players were recently deleted due to claims that neither of them passed the criteria for WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. While I accept that both these full-time professional players are not playing in a fully professional league (League of Ireland, I believe they both fulfil the WP:GNG requirements and have received significant coverage from both national and international media (I have listed some of the articles about McEleney in my comment here). Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to participate in either article's deletion debate before they were deleted, but I feel many articles relating to each player were overlooked and I have significantly edited both articles in draft format (see Draft:Patrick McEleney and Draft:Ronan Finn) to include more of these references and demonstrate General Notability. I wanted to run it by the WikiProject Football first to make sure there's consensus that people are now happy with the articles. Many thanks, --IrishTennis (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@IrishTennis: In support of the above comments I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues needs to be reviewed. It is my understanding that FIFA does not distinguish between "semi-professional" and "fully professional". A player is either a professional or an amateur. see page 10 So therefore the leagues listed cannot be described as "fully professional" because amateur players are not barred from playing in any of them. My suggestion is that the title should be changed to "top level and professional leagues" and/or that the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League and their equivalents in other confederations should be included. Currently articles on players who have played in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League are been deemed not notable based on the fact that they have not played in a so called "fully professional league". How can a player such as Gareth Seddon, who spent the majority of his career in the lower levels of English football be deemed notable, while a player like David McMillan and the above two who have played in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League be regarded as non-notable. Djln (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If a footballer has played in Champions League or Europa League are notable, however they must have played in the competition (group stage and onwards). Just playing in qualifying rounds against teams from small leagues like gibraltar does not make them notable. Qed237 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not if that was his only game, but the above three have all played against teams from Poland and Belarus. Djln Djln (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to play in the competition, not qualification, no matter who you meet. Qed237 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying rounds are still part of competition Djln Djln (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the WP:NFOOTY guidelines can be perhaps overly stringent on players who are playing for professional clubs at the top level in their country if not all the other clubs in that league are also professional. I would argue that in many cases these players receive more national coverage in the media and have more notability than a player who has spent his entire career in, for example, the 4th tier on English football. I feel it may be too far to include all qualifying rounds of European competition given the sheer multitude of teams competing in the earlier qualifying rounds on the Europa League, some of whom receive little to no significant coverage even in their own country, but appearing in the group stage of either the Champions League or Europa League certainly confers notability in my opinion. Perhaps a balance can be struck? In this instance, Ronan Finn played in all but one of Shamrock Rovers' Europa League group games in 2011 (report from their game v Rubin Kazan here), and McEleney will appear for Dundalk at the same stage in the coming weeks having played in all of their Champions League qualifying games to this point.--IrishTennis (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: So a player from Fiji playing a match against American Samoa in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification has been a part of 2018 FIFA WOrld Cup? There is a difference between "qualification" and "competition proper". You have not played in Champions League unless you participated in group stage and qualified for main tournament. Qed237 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Going off on a tangent and talking about another competition is no help at all. Totally pointless and irrelevant to topic. Playing in Champions League qualification phase is considerably more notable than playing in World Cup qualification. Anybody with basic grasp of football history would know that. Djln Djln (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well thats your opinion. The fact is that FIFA qualification is a internatiopnal tier 1 match and enough for notability. Champions League qualification is simply a minor qualification to a club tournament and not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The UEFA Champions League is the undisputed premier club football competition in the world. At least on this planet. Not sure what planet your living on. And you are dismissing it's opening games as a "minor qualification to a club tournament", really ! My advice to you is, whatever you are smoking you should pack it in ASAP. Djln Djln (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Djln please be careful with your comments, you're straying into personal attacks. --SuperJew (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not a personnel attack by any stretch, just some good life advice. Qed has been harassing/stalking me for several weeks after I disagreed with some edits he made. Maybe you should have a word with him. If he can't handle a bit of banter then tough. Djln Djln (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you feel Qed237 is harassing/stalking you because he seems to be everywhere, but I'm sure it's not personal as he is just very committed to the project. There is a current consensus at the project and that's what he's going by. Not saying that it shouldn't be changed, but that should come through civil discussion, not edit warring and/or personal attacks. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem with editors been passionate but I will have to disagree with you about it not been personal. Everyone I go he follows. You need to be having conversation about civil discussion, not edit warring and/or personal attacks with him and not me. Djln Djln (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're deflecting mate. In the current conversation you went into personal attack. If I'd see Qed237 doing personal attack, I'd remark about it to him too. From my previous experience with him though he engages in civil discussion, even when not in agreement, and is very helpful. --SuperJew (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not my experience with my Qed237. Complete opposite to be honest. You should check your facts before defending him. Djln Djln (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have gone slightly off-topic. In relation to notability, @Qed237: made an important point earlier that "if a footballer has played in Champions League [group stages] or Europa League [group stages] [they] are notable." Can someone clarify that this is the case? --IrishTennis (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

To be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL you have to play for a team from a WP:FPL against another team from a WP:FPL in a competitive match. Giant Snowman 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that there is no such thing as a fully professional league. Name me a league that amateur players are banned from. Djln Djln (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be banned from something for it to not be a thing. Yes amateur players can play in leagues we class as WP:FPL - but they don't. There is significant media coverage of (and associated money in) these leagues which you simply don't get in Ireland. Giant Snowman 14:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: There is more media coverage and associated money in the Albanian second tier division than in the League of Ireland Premier Division? As an aside, I think any player who appears in the group stages of the Champions League or Europa League should be deemed notable. Such a tiny fraction of footballers in Europe are good enough to play in the premier club competitions in European football that it makes it an extremely significant achievement.--IrishTennis (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

LoI gets plenty of media coverage within Ireland, significantly more then Albania's second division. But I agree any player that plays in groups stages of UCL/UEL is notable as far as I concerned. Totally irrelevant what league he plays in. Djln Djln (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Group stages of the Champions League? You might have a case there. Europa League? No. Giant Snowman 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why the distinction ? Europa League is second only to Champions League in club football competitions in the world. Djln Djln (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely disagreeable.. The competition is not what it used to be. I do think a Champions League group stage appearance makes a player notable, but as far as this season is concerned all of the clubs in the group stage are from a WP:FPL. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yep, one of the silliest things I've ever read on here! You don't work for UEFA's propaganda department do you Djln? Giant Snowman 17:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok then, after the Champions League which international club competition attracts the most money, draws the largest TV audience, attracts the most sponsorship ? The Europa League. You cannot seriously be claiming the Europa League is not notable, especially now that the winner qualifies for Champions League. Hope that wasn't a personal attack regarding working for UEFA ! Djln Djln (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If anything, hasn't the Europa League been getting bigger every year? [11] In the "case" you referred to earlier @GiantSnowman:, of a player playing in a partially professional league and also the Champions League, would it be under WP:GNG that you deem them notable?--IrishTennis (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Theo Hernández

Can some administrator move User:MYS77/Theo Hernández into Theo Hernández, please? The guy made his professional debut today. Thanks, MYS 77 ^✉ 16:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Can you do that, mate? MYS 77 ^✉ 18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@MYS77:

Done Giant Snowman 19:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thank you very much! MYS 77 ^✉ 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Bakary Soumaré

Born in Mali, played for Mali - but spent time in the States (and France) as a kid and has acquired American nationality due to residency. Should he be removed from Category:Expatriate soccer players in the United States and/or added to Category:American expatriate soccer people in Germany. I say no, @DrunkenGerman: says yes. I fear this sets a dangerous precedent for players who acquire 2nd nationalities due to residency to be removed from valid categories. Giant Snowman 17:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but in other categories such as "Premier League players" we include players that has played in PL even after they left (not just current players). This footballer has been an "Expatriate soccer players in the United States" and I think he should remain in that category. Qed237 (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Any reason he can't be in both ? Djln Djln (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

By definition an expatriate is someone who leaves his home country (in the sense of the country where he is living usually/his "home base") for a certain amount of time to live/work abroad.

Soumaré was raised and socialized in the US and can therefore by definition be no expatriate in the United States.

Off topic: To call such a player then Malian in the article's introductory sentence is in my point of view a bit misleading. He is living the life of a US citizen and just played a dozen matches for the Malian national team within a two year period. I would rather call him a US-Malian footballer or Malian international footballer.

Maybe you would like to take a look how the guys in French wikipedia handle this nationality mess. The French version of Bakary Soumaré is actually not useful, because there the US nationality is missing, but e.g. the article of fr:Karim Guédé, a German-Slovakian-Togolese player, is interesting. I would even love to see the French version of the infobox in the English wikipedia. DrunkenGerman (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion players should be identified with their FIFA nationality, so if he played officially for Mali than he should be listed in the lead as a Malian footballer. I agree with GiantSnowman on his choice of categories, there are many MLS players who have US green cards. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, as stated above he is in no way an expatriate in the US. The term expatriate is used fundamentally wrong here in footballer categories.

Then you have to ask yourself: What kind of implicit information does mentioning a nationality in the introduction give the reader of the article?

Usually a reader would expect that a person originates from the respective country. That means that the person is of the respective culture, does speak the respective language and is (in cases of primarily heterogenous ethnic societies) of a certain ethnicity.

FIFA/sport nationalities instead have often little to do with the original nationality of a person. Players can just choose between different nationality options, usually according to all nationalities their parents/grandparents may have had hold or for instance after the fall of the USSR, players could choose between a dozen successor state, no matter if they had any relation to them.

As a result, choosing a FIFA nationality has more become an option to make the best of a player's career and has in fact nothing to do with the culture in which they were socialized, the language they speak or the nationality they held originally.

Using only the sport's nationality of a player in the lead paragraph therefore gives an inaccurate and incomplete picture of a person and distracts the reader. DrunkenGerman (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant Ward

It was suggested on the talk page to rename him due to a possible conflict with the character Grant Ward from agents on shield. Maybe an admin can fix it. Also on transfermarkt.co.uk it says his transfer was for £604K I wanted to know how accurate that is as I was going to put it down on the Spurs season page. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

From what I know, transfermarkt isn't considered a reliable and verifiable source on Wikipedia. Personally I use it to get an outline of facts and then use that outline to find other references. I have noticed mistakes on it. Regarding Grant Ward the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. character (funnily enough that was my first assumption and I wondered why you'd talk about him on a football page ;)) I'd say leave as it is since the TV character doesn't have it's own page, and the footballer does have a "for the TV character" link at the top. --SuperJew (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to disambiguate an article from other articles that don't exist. As mentioned, there is a hatnote at the top of the article, which is sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, even this article is taking a guess http://cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2016/8/1/12340630/tottenham-hotspur-transfer-news-rumors-grant-ward-ipswich-town maybe that's what transfermarkt is using information like that to make an estimate. Govvy (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Galway United: two clubs or one?

After a very brief discussion here with only three participants, but no discussion on the talk pages of the respective pages, the articles about Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and Galway United F.C. (originally Galway United F.C. (2013) were merged. These are two separate clubs. The first was liquidated in 2011 and ceased to exist for two years, before a new club, originally known as Galway F.C. was formed in 2013, later changing its name to Galway United. This is rather a similar situation to Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C., when one club ceases to exist, and a new one is formed, which later changes its name to that of the older club - yet they should still be treated as different clubs. I propose to separate the articles again. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping it as one article. It's completely different to the Airdirieonians situation as the current Airdrieonians are actually the old Clydebank rather than a new club. A better parallel would be Newport County A.F.C., which is a single article. Number 57 09:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not "completely different", but in fact similar, though I accept not identical. The Newport situation is also a sham! Passing off the new club as though it were the old. Better examples would be Aldershot Town F.C., A.F.C. Telford United, Accrington Stanley F.C., Darlington 1883, Maidstone United F.C., Chester F.C., Gretna F.C. 2008, F.C. Halifax Town. Mooretwin (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  - It's not a sham though – in the early days of football clubs frequently went into abeyance or folded/reformed, yet we consider them to date back to the original founding. If a club has "re-formed" than it's not a new club, as there would be nothing to re-form from. And it's not like reliable sources don't treat Newport the same way (e.g. this). As you show above, we are quite inconsistent about this (counterexamples would be Bradford Park Avenue and possibly Cork City). Number 5 7 10:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment Article should be kept as it is. As I said in original discussion, if we start a new article every time a club temporarily drops out of a league or changes ownership it would get ridiculous. There is a big difference if a completely new club is formed decades or years later. Galway United's own website has a combined history and does not seem to recognize two separate clubs. The club just left the League of Ireland and after some restructuring returned a few seasons later. The club did not go out of existence and continued to field a team in the League of Ireland U–19 division. Both Derry City F.C. and Cork City F.C. underwent similar restructuring and they do not have separate articles. Djln Djln (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

From extratime.ie: "Galway United FC were formed in the Autumn of 2013 as a merger between the various League of Ireland football interests in the city. Representatives of Salthill Devon, Mervue United the Galway United Supporters Trust (GUST) and the Galway FA combined to form the board of the new club with both Salthill and Mervue conceding their places in the LoI First Division".
From The42.ie: "The newly-formed club, which is made up of the Galway United Supporters Group (GUST), Mervue United, Salthill Devon and the Galway & District League, has applied for an Airtricity League licence for 2014 and is preparing to compete in the First Division."
From Galway Advertiser: "newly formed club"

Derry City and Cork City were formally recognised by the LOI as continuations of the same club. Galway hasn't been. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

it is still essentially the same club restructured. According to the clubs own website, the club does not regard itself as being founded in 2013. Its own history page lists dozens of trophies won before 2013, explain that. Its totally irrelevant what the above links say as the club website clearly does not agree. GUST played a major part before and after 2013 and is the common thread between both eras. Club uses same name, same colours, same ground and has same supporter's trust. How exactly does it qualify as a separate club. Djln Djln (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course the club itself will wish to claim continuity, but that is a primary source. The secondary sources say it's a new club, formed two years after the old one's demise. So, in actual fact, it's the other way round: the club's own web site is irrelevant as we go with the secondary sources on WP. Mooretwin (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can just say "Here's a football team article, Galway United should be the same the same as this" because there are so many different ways on wiki that similar situations have been dealt with. It's different if you have a justification, that's more than just "It agrees with me", as to why you've chosen that article. For me when you look at an article like Rangers F.C., it hasn't been separated into the old and the new because the reliable sources used to verify the article say, or support the view, that it was founded in 1872. Mooretwin has shown above that there are reliable sources that say it is a new club and, from an encyclopedic point of view, if they different they should have different articles. Its the same with Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C., although a more black and white scenario, it's still what the reliable sources say. Personally, I think the two separate articles is correct as, like the Airdrieonians F.C. case, they founded a new club which doesn't use the same license to compete in the league. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment So what your saying is, we ignore the official club website because they are clearly lying and are at the centre of some kind of conspiracy to misled us about their history. Instead we take the word of some dubious and/or outdated secondary sources that are just expressing a POV that happens to coincide with Mooretwins agenda. Also in 2010 Bray Wanderers changed their abbreviation from A.F.C. to F.C. . Are we going to start a new article for them ? Djln Djln (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Djln: Jumping to extremes and phrasing it like that doesn't help your argument. Neither does the, quite frankly petty, Bray Wanderers argument. I agree with you that the club website is a legitimate source but in cases like this where, from what I have seen (and I'm not going to pretend to have seen everything), the majority of sources point to it being a different club, we should follow the majority, just like when we reach consensus on a discussion like this. I'll again point to the Rangers F.C. example because it's the majority of sources that say it's the same club. You will find some that disagree but most say it's a continuation and that's why I think it should be two separate articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How exactly did I jump to extremes ? Bray Wanderers point is more valid then nonsense about Rangers as they are in same league. So called majority of sources cited here are dubious and/or outdated secondary sources. As you admit you have not read everything on topic, I suggest you read some more on it and you will see it is not as complicated as Mooretwin is making out. The club underwent some restructuring, it never disbanded. Club uses same name, same colours, same ground and is managed by same supporter's trust. How exactly are they a separate club ? Djln Djln (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Saying things like "clearly lying", "some kind of conspiracy" and "Mooretwins agenda" are jumping to extremes. Teams change their names all the time (see Livingston F.C., Airdrieonians F.C. and Edinburgh City F.C.) so moving the article and creating a redirect is the only sensible option. It is silly to suggest that we create an entire new page for it so the "nonsense" about Rangers F.C. is a more valid point in this instance. From your point of view, you should be using Rangers as an example because they are considered the same club. They haven't played in the same league for four years because they had to be re-elected to the league. Just because it's run by the same people and plays in the same place doesn't make it the same club, as I've said above, it plays in the league under a different license which suggests that it is different entity. Another valid source, I'm sure you'll agree, is UEFA. On their website there are two separate pages for Galway clubs, the old club and the new club. As for the dubiety of the other sources Mooretwin has pointed out, they look reliable enough.

I'm sorry if I haven't come across the way I wanted to, it's difficult to convey tone through text. I was hoping we could have sensible discussion where you could put forward your point and I mine and, with the help of other editors, that we could reach some sort of consensus, whether it agrees with your view or mine. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Accusing me of "jumping to extremes" is a bit ridiculous and possibly a bit extreme itself. You need to read the Wikipedia:SARCASM guideline. You have a point about Rangers F.C. thou. There are similarities. In both cases the club dropped out of a league/division, started competing in a different league/division before eventually returning to the original league/division. Neither club was disbanded. They continued playing at the same ground, used the same name, played in the same colours and were supported by the same fan base and in Galway United's case, managed by the same supporters trust. Yet you are saying Galway United is two separate clubs, while Rangers F.C. is one. You are contradicting yourself. The two UEFA links are two pages about the same club, nothing more. Plus I didn't realise "look reliable enough" was now the Wiki standard for sources. Djln Djln (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason it sounds like I'm contradicting myself is because I'm using what the sources say. That's why Rangers F.C. are classed as one club. I would happily have you argue that they are two clubs, given that the old company still hasn't been formally liquidated, but the sources are of a different consensus, so it is one club. If you look at the UEFA sources, they are clearly two different club pages. One has a European history, one doesn't, one (albeit miss named) has domestic fixtures and results, one doesn't and they both have different badges, all indicators that they are different clubs. Every situation like this is different and should be treated as such. Another reason that I think there should be two articles in this case is that the new club, in a similar scenario to Airdrieonians F.C., were re-named to take on the name of the old club as it was originally called Galway FC.

I don't see how you could argue that the sources posted here so far aren't reliable and they are saying that this incarnation of Galway United F.C. is a different one to it's predecessor. As a result I would support a move to reinstate the two separate pages. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Club was known as Galway F.C. for a single season. Cork City F.C. changed their badge at least twice. Numerous other clubs have redesigned their badge, doesn't make them new clubs. Cork City also changed their kit four times, does that mean there should be four different Cork Citys. This UEFA link [12] refers to Galway United as Galway, doesn't mean anything but it could be a third Galway team. Galway United were originally known as Galway Rovers so maybe there should be four articles for four clubs. Mooretwin would just love that. Djln Djln (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we be a bit more sensible about this please? The new article per name, badge, colour change argument is a non starter, it's just a silly suggestion. I pointed it out because they had to apply for a license and the old club held the Galway United license so the new club couldn't use it.

You have a point with the UEFA source you've pointed out but it's a common tactic of UEFA to use a shorter team name, I'll give you it's more effective on teams like Sporting Clube de Portugal and Club Atlético de Madrid but they've done it on that occasion as well. Click on the Galway link on the page and it takes you to the clubs profile page, the old Galway United page.

The only source you've pointed out so far to show that they aren't two different clubs is the clubs website. As much as I agree that it is a valid source, it's the only one that I've seen that contradict's UEFA, newspaper articles and sports website articles that I'm sure you'll agree are equally valid sources. I admit, it shows how complicated the situation is when there are contradictory sources but seems to be an obvious majority in favour of there being two different Galway clubs. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am the one being sensible mate. You are proposing that we completely ignore the clubs own website and take the word of unreliable, dubious and outdated sites which are just reflecting the opinion of that particular blogger/writer. None of sites you have mentioned have any credibility. You cannot contradict the clubs own website just because it is the minority. I am positive the author of the clubs website knows more about their history then some office flunky in UEFA who has probably never even heard of Galway United Djln Djln (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Arguments like that are just unreasonable. You've been shown sources which contradict your view point and have done nothing but call into question their reliability. There is nothing unreliable or dubious about any of those sources. They are as legitimate as the clubs website. If you can present a better argument than that then I'll be happy to listen otherwise there will still be a reason to discuss this. At the moment, there is no consensus either way amongst editors on wikipedia. There was also no formal merger discussion on the talk:Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) and talk:Galway United F.C. (2013) pages which contravenes WP:MERGE as this is clearly a controversial issue. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree yes your arguments are unreasonable. Clubs website takes precedent over blogs as far as I am concerned. We will have to agree to disagree on the validity of sources. Yes it was discussed. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 101#Galway United Merger. Clearly not at same length as here, but there were no objections. It is controversial only the minds of yourself and Mooretwin, nobody else. Several editors (@Koppapa: @Abcmaxx: @Gufcfan: ) have also edited the article since I merged it and nobody complained or questioned it. Djln Djln (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Djln, on Wikipedia secondary sources take precedence over primary sources like the club web site. The new Galway is recognised as a different club by the FAI (new licence), UEFA, and the local press per the sources available. We shouldn't rewrite history just because the club wants to present itself as a continuation. Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, guys, it looks like this is going nowhere. I've requested [[13]]. Never done this before, so not sure what happens next. Mooretwin (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The request will almost certainly be rejected – dispute resolution is for major disputes (usually ones that have turned nasty). An RFC would be a better route. Number 5 7 10:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try that, though they rarely succeed in eliciting much participation in my experience. Mooretwin (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I've moved posted an RfC at Galway United F.C. and posted this discussion. Hopefully we'll get a few more contributors. Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Champions League

Is this enough to create 2018-19 UEFA Champions League article? It has got some attention around the world, but I was wondering if it is too soon anyway. However, we do have 2018–19 UEFA Nations League. I was planning on creating the CL article. Qed237 (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, the 2017–18 women's article was deleted because it was too soon. That even has qualified teams now, the men's coefficients aren't even known yet. -Koppapa (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Season position updater for clubs

One of the questions I was asked during the FourFourTwo interview was what was the most boring thing about editing football articles, and my response was the end-of-season updates to club articles. That got me thinking about how it could be done more easily, so I have developed a new template ({{English football updater}}) that can be added to club articles. Once this is added, only the template needs updating, which means hundreds or thousands of articles can be updated by editing the one template. The template works like this:

Each club has a eight-letter identifier (or less if there are fewer in the club's name), e.g. FootownU for Footown United (you can see all the ones I've done by opening the template). This is then used for three separate things:

{{English football updater|FootownU}} gives the club's current league (e.g. Premier League)
{{English football updater|FootownU2}} produces a link to the club's previous league season article (e.g. 2015–16)
{{English football updater|FootownU3}} gives the club's finishing position last season (e.g. Premier League, 2nd)

I've added it to a couple of articles just to show it works: Arsenal and York Railway Institute.

In addition to making it easier to do the end of season updates, there are a few other benefits:

Consistent presentation of last season's position
Ensures clubs below level 10 aren't missed off the update rounds (York Railway Institute still had their 2013–14 position listed) as I've tried to include every extant club below that level and any missed leagues will stand out
Hopefully it will stop editors changing it to the current season position (I see this occasionally)
It can be used in other situations (e.g. in some intros that start something along the lines of "Billy Jones is a footballer who plays for Footown United in the {{English football updater|FootownU}}") to automatically update text.
It can be duplicated for other countries

Thoughts, comments? One thing to note is that it's still not entirely complete as I haven't done the step 3, 4, 5 and 6 leagues yet. Number 5 7 17:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggested something similar a few years ago but never had the where-with-all to start it myself, so really happy to see something like this. I can't see anything wrong with it, and I know there are a lot of other similar quick updates that could possibly be achieved in a similar fashion. Nice work. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now added the step 3 and 4 leagues, so just the 5 and 6 ones (plus their lower divisions) to do.... Number 5 7 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's brilliant, excellent work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, nice work. And if it stops idiots flaunting their own team's confirmed title (or their rivals' relegation position) before the season finishes, it's doubly welcome. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with everyone here. This is a very neat template. Will probably try to do the same for Indian football when I can. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

When i have time i look to do the German (1,2,3) ones. Kante4 (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: You should definitely try and include lower divisions too – there are hundreds of articles on clubs below 3. Liga that could benefit too (I think this is arguably more of a benefit that the higher-level clubs) – e.g. TuS Celle etc. Number 5 7 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if time allowes. Kante4 (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice! :D --SuperJew (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Already done the Indian one (not exactly hard when you have only 1-2 leagues really :( Seriously, thanks Number 57. Template is easy and simple to use and can really help change football wikipedia articles. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the positive feedback people. If everyone's happy with it, I guess the next task is to start rolling it out and adding it to articles. Would anyone be up for helping with that? Perhaps we can tick leagues off the following list when they're done?

~~Premier League~~, Football League, ~~National League~~, ~~Northern Premier League~~, ~~Southern League~~, Isthmian League, ~~Combined Counties League~~, ~~Eastern Counties League~~, ~~East Midlands Counties League~~, ~~Essex Senior League~~, ~~Hellenic League~~, ~~Midland League~~, ~~North West Counties League~~, ~~Northern Counties East League~~, ~~Northern League~~, ~~South West Peninsula League~~, ~~Southern Counties East League~~, ~~Spartan South Midlands League~~, ~~Southern Combination~~, ~~United Counties League~~, ~~Wessex League~~, ~~Western League~~, ~~West Midlands (Regional) League~~ and ~~Step 7 & below~~.

NWC done and ticked off. Hope to have time for others later. Drawoh46 (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

NL, NPL, NCEL, NFL, SFL and SCEL done Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hell, ML, SSMP, UCL, WxL and WMRL finished. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are one or two gremlins hidden in there somewhere (most likely potential duplicate club names – the only ones I spotted and differentiated were Norwich City/Norwich CEYMS and Winchester City/Winchester Castle), so do let me know if you find anything! Cheers, Number 5 7 12:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I dunno. As soon as the season ends, most club articles still need updating due to imminent transfers, loans, manager changes and other stuff. Why not just update the position along the way? -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That may be the case for clubs in the top four or five divisions, but most below that don't have squad lists and manager changes don't necessarily happen in the summer. Plus many clubs lower down the pyramid are not updated (I've seen several now that still had 2013–14 as their most recent season update). Number 5 7 15:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. Nice work. I think it could also be helpful to have the template include the club specific current season. This is an example of "specific club current season" I'm referring to if it's not clear: 2016–17 Juventus F.C. season. It would be great if those could update too with one template. It probably wouldn't be as necessary for the lower league clubs, as they usually don't have club season articles, but would still be beneficial. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've done the rest of the Premier League teams so it's scored off the list. I'd do a Scottish version but I'm not 100% on how to do that so any help would be appreciated. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: Great, thanks for that! I've started one for Scotland – {{Scottish football updater}} (I've only done the Premiership and Championship for now, so please do expand it!); the league codes are all listed in {{SLs}} (I think I've included all the relevant leagues), and I've added it to Celtic F.C. as a start. Cheers, Number 5 7 20:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: You're very welcome. Thanks for starting that, I'll get on it. Just a wee note though, my edit to Manchester United was reverted by @PeeJay2K3: and I don't want to get into an edit war. I don't know if he's aware of this discussion so I've tagged him so he can see it if he hasn't and then we can possibly bring it back on Manchester United. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I think he did it by accident as he's reverted himself! Number 5 7 21:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment: I'd recommend doing the league codes lists in an XXXLs format (for example: {{ENGLs}} or {{SCOLs}}) as one letter isn't enough difference. I mean what are we going to do for Spain's league codes list now? --SuperJew (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds sensible – could use the trigrammes. Number 5 7 21:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a template category created for these yet? Like Category:Football updater templates by country or something? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Moved to {{ENGLs}} and {{SCOLs}}; @ArsenalFan700: I've started Category:Association football infobox updater templates and also put them in each country's template category. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Got a question. I've put down that Civil Service Strollers F.C. and Hawick Royal Albert F.C. were promoted from 2015–16 East of Scotland Football League but I don't know if that's right as they finished 3rd and 5th respectively. I think it may have to do with SFA/SPFL criteria for gaining promotion but neither article (2015–16 East of Scotland Football League or 2016–17 Lowland Football League) really explains it, the latter just says they joined the league. There was only one relegation spot which makes me think one or both were elected/chosen to join like when the league was first created. This also makes it look that way. I know it's not the most important issue but I think we should get it right and I wanted to know what you thought about it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: My understanding is that clubs applied to join the league and had their applications assessed by the Lowland League's board for a final decision on who would be admitted (Edusport Academy were the other team to apply). However, whilst it's not an automatic promotion system, it's still a promotion of sorts as the Lowland League is a higher level than the EoSL and the SoSL. I can't really think of anything better to put than "(promoted)". I know Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) is active in editing Scottish football articles, so perhaps they could provide a view? Cheers, Number 5 7 12:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"(elected to higher league)" or similar.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering about "elected", but I can't see anything to suggest that there was a vote of any kind. Number 5 7 12:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What about "joined" instead of elected? The article say's that and even if it turns out they were elected, they still joined it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi all - coming to this quite late as I just noticed Number 57 (talk · contribs) adding the template to a bunch of club articles I watch. While on the whole I like automation, I have a couple of reservations about this, which might be easily answered by others.

I think I did the League updates for both of the Combined Counties League divisions at the end of the season. It was quite a lot of work, finding out which teams were moving between divisions and into and out of the league. Is all that updating work gonna fall on Number 57 (talk · contribs)'s shoulders now? For every league? Or can anyone update the template?
What will happen with diffs and revisions? If you look at this diff where I 'moved' the club into the CCPL, then this revision (before the change) and this revision (after the change) show the change in League. If I did a similar test at the end of next season, will the revisions show the differences? Given that the league stuff in the article won't have changed, just the template contents have, I thought that meant that Wikipedia's revision engine will just transclude the current contents of the template into the revision.

To see an example of what I mean here is a change of school name in the Schools in Berkshire navbox. In the revisions of the relevant school article before and after the change you can see that the navbox at the bottom doesn't change. It just shows the current contents of the navbox in both revisions. For many (most?) clubs, especially in the lower divisions (step 4 and below), the club articles will often not even mention promotion/relegation in the text, except where a change of league is involved. I am concerned that the article history will not now reflect the true history of change in the article, as these major changes have been delegated to an external template. Am I correct that the old revisions will always show the current data from the template? Is that really desirable? TIA CalzGuy (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

Anyone will be able to edit the templates (although I have protected the English one for template editors given that it will possibly become a high use/visibility template).
You'll also be able to see diffs of changes to the template (e.g. here).

I don't think there should be any concerns – there are several templates on football club articles that can be changed without editing the page – the format of the infobox itself, the league template and so on. If there is a problem created by the updater template, it should be much easier to spot than isolated vandalism to low-ranked non-league club that is likely to go unnoticed. Number 5 7 13:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

With regard to point 2, I think what the other editor meant was that because a template is used, and the current version of the template is always called even when you are looking at an earlier version of an article, when you view an old version, it will display the current EFU values. So if you viewed a version of Man U's article from 2008, the most recent season would be shown as 2015-16...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but it's the same for any other template transcluded on the page. The 2008 Manchester United article also has the current Premier League template for 2016–17 on it. Number 5 7 14:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a real difference between displaying a current navbox and displaying 'incorrect' inline text. For instance if Horley Town F.C. were promoted/relegated at the end of next season, without any other edits to the article this edit means that the article would read ... with the first team playing at step five of the National League System in the ... <whatever_the_new_league/division_is> which would be incorrect. Now I know the likelihood of Horley getting promoted is remote (especially considering their pre-season) but the problem still exists. As yet, I'm not convinced it is necessarily a change for the better. CalzGuy (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's my bad, I didn't realise that the "at step five" bit was included in the intro. Cases like this would be a problem, so I'll endeavour to ensure this isn't repeated. Number 5 7 15:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Also templates like current squad show the current squad and not whatever revision you're looking at. Also, is this really a relevant point? How many readers of Wikipedia go look at old editions of the pages? If it is important info it should be included in the history of the most recent edition anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Another point to consider: Should these updater templates also have for current season, at least for 1st tier teams? It's another annoying parameter updated every season. The problem I can see with it is that there are under 1st tier teams (especially outside England) which don't have season pages (notability-wise or just no people working on them), which as why I said maybe at least for 1st tier teams. --SuperJew (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Beyond the size of the template, there's no reason why they can't be included. However, given the recent issues we've had with season articles at Conference level, I am a little wary of them. Number 5 7 16:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just made {{Italian football updater}}. I've only added Serie A and Serie B so far, but if anyone would like to help out with Lega Pro and Serie D, that would be much appreciated. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As I'm spending a lot of my spare time at the moment going round updating CFA and CFA2 clubs for (at least) season updates, this would be quite useful for France. Lack of time precludes me making it at least this side of November, and I would caution whether the effort would be well spent this season anyway, as the whole league structure below Ligue 2 is changing next year. Still, if someone has time to burn before I get round to it, feel free :) Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I see that you've added the NWC clubs to the master template. I tried updating the infobox of one of the clubs; all went well, except that the 2015–16 link was in red - reporting 2015–16 North West Counties League (page does not exist) I think the word Football may be missing. BTW I'm happy to make the appropriate changes to the NWC clubs' pages. Drawoh46 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Should be fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Number 5 7

@Number 57: All looks good now - once I'd remembered to do a WP:NULL on the club page! Thanks. Drawoh46 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Another league seasonal page which is coming up red is West Midlands (Regional) for 2015–16. For some reason Premier Division has been included in part of the article's name. I hit this problem when amending Shawbury United F.C.. I guess this problem might also apply to references to the 2016–17 article. Drawoh46 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: And another. As with NWC, I think that Football is missing from the East Midlands League link for 2015–16. (Found when amending St Andrews F.C.). Drawoh46 (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46 and Delusion23: Should all be fixed now (although not sure if you meant Canning Town? They're in the Essex Olympian). Up to you guys if you want to change the abbreviations ;) Number 5 7 11:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: The updater templates do not appear to be working correctly for WMRL. I think it may be as a result of the league article being called West Midlands (Regional) League, and the seasonal articles rather strangely being called 201x–1y West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division.
Possibly the first of these lines in the ENGLs template:

| WMRL = West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division
| WMRLP = West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division

needs Premier Division removed. Drawoh46 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly the correct solution would be to bite the bullet and rename the WMRL seasonal articles by removing the words Premier Division from their titles. This should bring them into line with the rest of the Step5/6 seasonal articles. After all, we don't call the Midland League's season articles 201x–1y Midland League Premier Division and Division One. There would only be five such seasonal articles to change, as WMRL is relatively new. Drawoh46 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Fixed for now. I'd be open to the league seasons being moved, so let me know if you do it, and I'll update the template (it will still work for now with redirects in place). Cheers, Number 5 7 07:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: All working ok now for WMRL, thanks! Regarding changing the league's season articles, I'll probably put it up here for discussion, to get a consensus, before making any change. Drawoh46 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Still on WMRL. There are a few discrepancies with the 2015–16 positions stated in the template, compared with those given on WMRL website. In particualar Dudley Sports 7th (6th in template), Wolverhampton C 6th (7th), Wellington 11th (13th), Smethwick 12th (11th), Dudley Town 13th (12th), Wellington Amateurs 19th (20th), Bilston 20th (19th). Drawoh46 (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Should all be fixed now – not sure what happened there; I presume I was using a duff version of the table from somewhere else... Thanks for letting me know though! Number 5 7 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Red link when using season parameter for SSML clubs. Space seems to be missing after 2015–16. Drawoh46 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Fixed! Number 5 7 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Thanks for all those! One more, also in SSML, but link is to SL. Leighton Town. Drawoh46 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drawoh46: Fixed again (sorry about all the errors). I've also updated the Leighton article. Cheers, Number 5 7 09:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: Apologies are quite unnecessary. There are remarkably few, when considering the total size of the task. Many thanks! Drawoh46 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see much benefit of this template either. Ok, some clubs further down aren't updated often, but the info on a past season didn't get wrong either (because it's not named last season). And my fear is this template won't get updated down to the bottom either. Anyway, huge effort. A technical question: If there is a 1000 byte club article that uses this template, will the browser actually load 150kb (1+149 currently) then when viewing the page? -Koppapa (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I had doubts too about the value of the template when I first read about it. However I soon changed my mind, and, having applied it to a few clubs, I've seen that a remarkable number of articles have, in their introductions, shown clubs to be still in leagues and/or divisions which they left a few seasons ago. Use of this template will considerably reduce errors of that kind. Drawoh46 (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And already people are starting to try and remove the template......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd noticed this update a few minutes before you reversed it. It seems that the user was under the misapprehension that the infobox is supposed to be showing the current position of the team in this season, rather than the finishing position in last season. Thanks for reversing it. Drawoh46 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukrainian bankrupt clubs magically brought back to life on Wikipedia

I personally think that Wikipedia should not create a new reality. But with Ukrainian football clubs that in real life have disappeared this happens all the time.

In 2013 I created a new article about the then new club FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv.... but now this article is merged with the Wikipedia article about the defunct (since 2013) club FC Obolon Kyiv. Obolon-Brovar is a new club created by the former owner of FC Obolon; that this new club took over the history of another club with a similar name is nonsense.
The Wikipedia article FC Arsenal Kyiv combines information about 2 different clubs who from a legal point of view have no connection (you can not re-establish something that went bankrupt, there was a new club established with a similar name).
The Wikipedia article FC Metalurh Zaporizhya makes the samemistake as the Wikipedia article FC Arsenal Kyiv.
The Wikipedia article FC Metalist Kharkiv has been renamed FC Metalist 1925 Kharkiv while "Metalist 1925" is a new club while officially FC Metalist Kharkiv does still exists as an organisation (it doesn't do anything; but formally and legally it is still alive).

Since Ukrainianfootball clubs go bankrupt all the time... there might be more examples (then I have given above).

Please create new Wikipedia articles about new things/organisations/clubs and do not create illusions that new organisations magically took over the grandiose past of organisations that don't exist anymore. Let these old organisations/clubs have their own (stand alone) Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I just moved FC Metalist 1925 Kharkiv back to FC Metalist Kharkiv because the article is still about the successful Metalist founded in 1925 and not about a club created this month (August 2016). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Full support to your proposition to split the different entities with the same name. So, it's need to create two articles for each similar situation:
- FC Obolon Kyiv and FC Obolon-Brovar Kyiv
- FC Arsenal Kyiv and FC Arsenal-Kyiv
- FC Metalurh Zaporizhya and FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya (?)
- FC Metalist Kharkiv and FC Metalist 1925 Kharkiv

Compare with Wembley Stadium and Wembley Stadium (1923). 95.133.211.190 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't think a split is necessary. If a new club is a continuation of a former club and claims that former club's history, then why not keep it as one article? As long as it's made clear (for instance by having separate sections) that this is the case in the article, I don't see a problem. We do this in numerous other cases (e.g. Fiorentina, Newport County) as many clubs have folded and reformed at some point in their history (sometimes on multiple occasions, e.g. Parma – would it really be helpful to the reader to have six separate articles on different versions of the club?). Number 5 7 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please forgive my being blunt but I think that there is no such thing as "different versions of a football club". I think that is a thing football fans use as an illusion that they are connected to a glorious past of a club that went away. I am not a fan (although I have preferences for some clubs) of any football team; as you might have noticed..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem with being blunt, but you have to understand that people (including reliable sources) see this in different ways. Ultimately the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform the reader, and personally I don't think it's helpful to have what is effectively the same topic split into multiple articles when for all intents and purposes it's a continuation in some form or other of the same entity – perhaps not necessarily legally speaking, but if we went down the technical legal route and insisted on separate articles for every separate legal entity, the outcome would be absurd in many cases, and certainly detrimental to the reader (especially when sources external to Wikipedia treat them as continuations of the same club). As I said, as long as it's made clear in the article that the club folded and was re-formed, I don't see the problem. Number 5 7 22:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as old and new club didn't coexist at some point and as long as we have a single page for old and new Rangers (as a precedent), I support the merger of articles.-BlameRuiner (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an on going problem. However, in WP, WP:COMMONNAME has plenty of reason. In particular, some clubs in their website specifically indicate that they historically linked to the folded or defunct club. Also many English references refer to the clubs by the commonname even though they may not have comprehended that the club has been reformed. There have be a few edit wars about the splitting of the teams and having a separate article for the new team and its been in favour of NOT splitting articles for the sake of new versions of the club. I will and have supported such motions - probably quite vigorously! Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EFL Trophy footnotes for Career statistics tables in Player articles

I wanted to seek consensus as to how we should proceed with including EFL Trophy footnotes in Career statistics tables. Should we continue using the "Football League Trophy" footnote, rename the footnote to "EFL Trophy", or start an entirely new EFL Trophy footnote. Thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do we even need these footnotes? If we use in-line citations in career stats tables e.g. using {{soccerbase season}} then there is no need. Giant Snowman 06:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes inform the reader by allowing them to see which "other" competitions the subject played in without having to go elsewhere to find out.

As to the original question, I'm not sure. Where possible, I'd keep it historically correct, using the current name alone for players who make their competition debut this season, and keeping the previous name for players who haven't yet appeared in this year's competition. For players who've already played in the FL Trophy and have now played in the EFL Trophy, I'd be tempted to use something like

Appearances in Football League Trophy / EFL Trophy, i.e. piping both names to the current article name, or possibly

Appearances in EFL Trophy and predecessors

I definitely wouldn't use the EFL name alone for players who appeared in the thing before the name change, it'd be misleading. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. For players making their debuts in the competition this season, I've been using the current name. For the moment, I've been continuing to use Football League Trophy for players who have played in the competition under both names. However, when I was doing this, it didn't seem the correct thing to do, hence my reasons for starting this discussion. I would be in favour of using Football League Trophy / EFL Trophy, but I would rather establish a consensus to ensure consistency throughout player articles before making any changes. Further opinion on this matter would be helpful to establish a preferred format. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd go with what the competition was known at the time, like I've done at this table. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That probably is the correct approach. I wasn't comfortable with it in this case because it makes them look like different competitions when all that's changed is a bit of rebranding in the title. But we do exactly that with league divisions, or with the UEFA Cup/Europa League, so doing otherwise would be inconsistent.

As an aside, have you ever considered getting pages like 1987–88 Football League Trophy moved? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've thought about it but never actually gotten around to it. Do you have a source confirming the date of the name change? Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

One might have hoped our article would have a source... The front page of Jeremy Hicks' site states that the change of official name was made in 1992 when ~~football was invented~~ the distinction between full and associate members was abolished. Hicks co-wrote the RSSSF page on the subject and is cited by Richard Rundle at the FCHD page. There was so much going on then that a change of official name for a lower division cup that was always referred to by its sponsored name didn't register very strongly on the media's radar. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new footnote with the current name definitely seems the way to go, especially considering the UEFA Cup/Europa League example and article name conventions changing in line with the season the new name was introduced. That clears things up from my perspective. Many thanks, LTFC 95 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

On a related point, how should appearances made in this competition by players playing for Premier League/Championship academy sides and similarly in The Scottish Challenge Cup by players playing for Premiership under-20 sides be recorded in statistics tables? Should it just be recorded as an appearance and that's it, should a note be used to say that it was for an academy/under-20 side or should it not be recorded at all as it wasn't a first team match for their club? A Well Fan (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

See existing debate above at #Statistics for Premier League 2..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

CSD tags

Is this a correct removal? Qed237 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Don't see the reason for copyvio, as a few people said on the talkpage. Also hard for me to take it seriously as the user who copyvio'ed it doesn't do much editing of soccer tournament related pages. --SuperJew (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ozoti̇te Smart Eji̇fe

Smart is a professional soccer player, who currently plays as a striker for Lefke Sport Club Cyprus. Smart began his career as a youth player for Delta United in Nigeria for several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty4life (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

And your point is.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ben Alnwick #Sex tape scandal

I thought that section was removed ages ago, the citations don't work and the source from the Sun wasn't that reliable. Should it be removed or not? Govvy (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:BLP. Giant Snowman 16:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

k, removed it, I hope it doesn't return. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Everton FC

Hi guys,

A dispute has arisen over whether players who haven't been named in the 25-man premier league squad, but are still list as members of the first team on the club website (at: http://www.evertonfc.com/teams/first-team ; http://www.evertonfc.com/teams/first-team?page=2 and http://www.evertonfc.com/teams/first-team?page=3 ), should be listed in the first team squad section of the article, or on the separate reserves and academy page. The players in question are primarily Aiden McGeady and Luke Garbutt (both currently on loan elsewhere) but extends to other members of the squad who have featured for the team. My understanding of the MOS is that, regardless of whether they have been named in the PL squad list or allocated a squad number, if they have have played for the first team in their current spell at the club then they should be listed in the first team squad section rather than on the reserves page.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. douts (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Douts raised the above issue. Please judge this case admin, thank you so much.

My first source dated 2 August 2016 from the official Everton F.C. website clearly stated the first team squad list (the current first team list in the Everton Wiki page at the moment) for this season under Koeman. No mention of Garbutt and McGeady.

Source: http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2016/08/02/squad-numbers-for-2016-17

The second source dated 1 September 2016 from the official Everton F.C website, which is the 25-man PL squad list handed over to the English FA by Everton. Again no mention of Garbutt and McGeady.

Source: http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2016/09/01/squad-list-confirmed.

Admin, kindly review the evidence I provided above. Both articles had not even mentioned a word regarding Garbutt and McGeady. As I said, the OS rarely update the players section. They even list more than 10 kids in that section. Please judge this issue. Cheers. User:220 (User talk:220) 17:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.108.114 (talk)

As far as I can see, Douts is in the right here. With regards to the loanees, it's fairly obvious that McGeady and Garbutt should be listed in the On loan section; their inclusion in the 25-man squad is irrelevant – why would they be listed in the 25 squad if they were on loan? None of the other players listed as on loan are in the squad list either. Number 5 7 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If Douts is to add Garbutt and McGeady then he should add all the players listed in the first team section on the official site as well. Not just those two players. Is that right admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.108.114 (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

That is what I was planning on doing :) douts (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough Douts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.108.114 (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Paralympian Footballers

What's the position on notability around footballers appearing for their national team in the Paralympics? Sean Highdale who will appear for the Great Britain team in Brazil seems, in particular to have garnered significant press coverage for his Paralympics call up - includinga BBC documentary, article on the BBC, Liverpool Echo, Fox Sports, in addition to previous press coverage in relation to his payout for the end of his career Liverpool Echo, Daily Mail on top of previous coverage around his Youth career with Liverpool FC. Zanoni (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The notability guideline WP:NOLYMPICS requires Paralympic athletes to win a medal to become automatically notable; not sure how that works with team sports. Articles exist for three British Para-footballers, all of whom were in a GB medal-winning team at a Paralympic World Cup. Even without a medal I don't think you'd have any problem with Mr Highdale passing WP:BIO. I'd had vague thoughts about researching Jack Rutter to see if there was enough, but Highdale's life and career is far higher profile. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Struway2 - article now created. Zanoni (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Statistics for Premier League 2

My understanding is that in the U.S., teams like LA Galaxy would also have a reserve side, LA Galaxy II and we would would record their stats from the reserve side as well. With the new installment of reserve sides being allow to play in an offical knock-out competition such as the EFL Trophy. Should we be recording the reserve sides stats as well? Along one of our sources for citation, Soccerway, also began recording these stats as well. Chelseafc1129 (talk) (17:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

As far as I know, reserve team statistics should only be recorded if the reserve team plays in a first team competition.--Echetus Xe 18:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In theory I'd have no objection to players' stats for the "reserve" teams (which are actually being listed as under-23 teams, I believe) in the EFL Trophy being included in career stats tables, given that they'll be playing against other clubs' first teams, as long as they were clearly identified as such. As they aren't league games, they wouldn't be in the infobox of course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, we would add the cup games into the stat table of the reserve players. But the confusing thing would be since the club name (for example: Chelsea U23) would be on table. How should we handle all the others stats as well. Should we just ignore the Premier League 2 and other stats completely? Wshjackson (talk) (21:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

There's a slight difference, the American 'reserve' sides are their own clubs with a bought franchise license. They are separate 'clubs'. Players can't represent the MLS teams unless it's a loan move or their contract rights are bought by MLS. TheBigJagielka (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

In the specific case of the EFL Trophy, in a few weeks my team, Gillingham will play West Bromwich Albion U23. It would be odd to have a situation where the players for one team had appearances and goals added to their career stats tables, and the players for the other team didn't. I think we should include the stats, the only question would be how to show them......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend something like this:

Club	Season	League			FA Cup		League Cup		Other		Total
Club	Season	Division	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals	Apps	Goals
West Bromwich Albion U23	2016–17		—		—		—		1^{[nb 1]}	0	0	0

^ Appearances in the EFL Trophy

Not sure what I'd put in the "Division" column though. – Pee Jay 07:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

N/A.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this inconvenience for Wikipedians is just one more reason to hate the whole idea of these teams being allowed into the Trophy in the first place ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd remove the blank space for the division and extend the colspan. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

On a related tack, do big-club U23 players become notable by playing in the EFL Trophy? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd just 'bump' this question as we have the matches tonight. I can't off the top of my head recall if a League Cup/FA Cup appearance for a team from professional league makes a player notable - I think it does but WP:NFOOTY is not clear on the matter. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Playing for or against an U23 team would not meet NFOOTBALL. Cup notability is established by playing for a team from a FPL, against a team from a FPL, in a competitive cup match. The U23 league is not a FPL. Giant Snowman 20:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear here in relation to the revised Football League Trophy - so, as an example, do the players who played in the Gillingham vs Luton match this week become notable if they make their first appearance for either club - but those playing for West Brom's Under-23 team and Milwall in this match don't? Zanoni (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have understood it over the years although WP:NFOOTY mentions playing in a fully-pro league, we have often taken this to mean for a fully-pro team against another fully-pro team in cup competitions as well. As stated above the U23 teams do not play in fully-pro leagues so fail the fully-pro test for players.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I get that - it was more a question of if between two fully professional clubs i.e. Luton vs Gillingham, do the players still(?) become notable - so for example 4 Luton players made their debuts in that match, including a 15 year old striker Zanoni (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

In the strictest sense of NFOOTY, no they don't. In common practice over the years, yes they do. My advice, and it is only my advice, if you are going to create articles for them then supply as many good quality references as possible and don't just rely on their appearance in the FLT conferring notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

If you play for a League club against another League club in the EFL Trophy then you meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL, but playing for/against a U23 team does not. Giant Snowman 11:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnet F.C.

Okay, it's worse than I expected. Barnet FC moved to Edgware, but this user (IP) is back and is adding incorrect factual errors, I requested page protect to stop this from happening which was denied. Then I tried to explain, now I am being attacked by admin's saying I am warring. I can't contain the article. He has gone an introduced nasty WP:Overlinks and I am sitting here wanting to revert but scared these admins want to block me from correcting the page. Govvy (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Liga now a disambiguation page

User:The Banner moved the article about Germany's third tier from 3. Liga to 3. Liga (Germany) and turned the former into a disambiguation page, thus breaking all links that were meant to point to the German third tier article. There was no discussion as far as I can tell. What is the prudent thing to do now? Madcynic (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You can revert per WP:BRD; or you can initiate a WP:RM to move it back; or you can fix the links yourself? Giant Snowman 16:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't even know if the disambiguation page is the right way to go per policy. As for fixing the links, we're talking about 200+ pages that link to 3. Liga, most of them probably unintentionally... I'm a bit out of my depth here... Madcynic (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not use WP:AWB or another semi-automated programme to make it easier? Giant Snowman 17:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be moved back and a discussion held. Kante4 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm attempting to move it back. 3. Liga (disambiguation) has been restored, but I need 3. Liga deleted so that the proper article may be moved back. I have tagged is for WP:G6. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

And started with false templating me for unconstructive edits, without even having the courtesy to tell me that you disagreed. The Banner talk 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the links is easy enough, I shall make a start with it. There is no reason to treat Germany different than other competitions. The Banner talk 17:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Banner: If you perform a Google search for 3. Liga, you will find that all the top results are for the German 3. Liga. That is clearly the primary topic. I didn't realize that WP:BRD had become BDR. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:NPA please... And please be aware that Google might have done more work on Germany than on other countries, giving unbalanced results. The Banner talk 18:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that the German 3. Liga is the main topic, and is a professional, nationwide league unlike some of the others. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it is absolutely non-logical and POV, but I will be powerless against teamwork to do it wrong. The Banner talk 09:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds logical that out of the leagues named 3. Liga, the only one which is fully professional is the primary topic, no? --SuperJew (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

transferleague.co.uk RS?

Do we consider transferleague.co.uk a reliable source? I've noticed a few previously undisclosed fees being updated using this site as a cite, including a few which have previously been disputed.

I can't see anything inherently reliable about it personally. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The FAQs make it clear that it's one random person's website. And the Q&A reproduced below makes it clear that any resemblance to fact is largely coincidental:

Q. The fees for Anderson, Nani, Tosic and Ljajic should be recorded as undisclosed. The sums you operate with are just based on newspaper stories and hear say. Although some of the fees maybe close to correct. They are most certainly performance based and will depend on the players and United's success in the coming years

A. The fees for these players are substantial and to enter them as undisclosed would unfairly skew the database.

So no, it wouldn't qualify as a reliable source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, add it to the list with Transfermarkt and Zerozero etc. as non-reliable user-generated content. Giant Snowman 10:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all, as I suspected. Gricehead (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletions of current squad templates

Please join the discussions regarding the deletion of the following squad templates of bankrupt or lower division teams:

Australia: Central Coast Mariners FC W-League 2008-09
Belgium: R.A.E.C. Mons, C.S. Visé
Cyprus: Alki Larnaca
France: Le Mans FC, FC Istres, AC Arles-Avignon, AS Cannes, Evian Thonon Gaillard F.C.
Malta: Marsaxlokk F.C.
Poland: Flota Świnoujście, Kolejarz Stróże, Ruch Radzionków, Dolcan Ząbki, Zawisza Bydgoszcz
Romania: FC Farul Constanţa, FC Rapid București, FC Gloria Buzău, FC Universitatea Craiova, FC Unirea Alba Iulia, FCM Baia Mare
Turkey: Sakaryaspor, Diyarbakırspor, Altay S.K.

Thanks, Kq-hit (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentain FC Farul Constanţa and FC Unirea Alba Iulia, both are historical teams and they also have some notable players. Rhinen

Bakary Soumaré

Re-raising the discussion archived here because @DrunkenGerman: still doesn't understand. The quandry - do we include players with acquired nationality in the nationality-related categories of the 'new' country e.g. a Spanish player acquires British nationality after living in the UK for a number of years, do we then add him to Category:British footballers and remove from Category:Spanish expatriates in the United Kingdom? Of course we don't, but raising it nonetheless so that DrunkenGerman finally gets the point. Giant Snowman 17:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Factually incorrect approach which also leads to wrong impressions to readers. As discussed before...term "expatriate" used here in an absolutely incorrect way, fundamentally wrong....Mentioning a nationality in a person's article should reflect the country where he was socialized and spent most of the time in his life. Caps for a national team are only a small part of a player's career. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, describing him as American is "factually incorrect" - he was born in Mali, and is notable for playing international football for Mali. He grew up in the States (also France) - no idea where you got "most of the time in his life" from? I suggest you read this for a definition of "expatriate". Finally, yours is a ridiculous idea as it means every player who acquires nationality will lose their expatriate status, which is nonsense. Giant Snowman

Article and corresponding sources show he had foster parents in New York, went to high school in New York, to college in Virginia, and then he became a professional in Chicago. And he spent some Paris, yes. So it's pretty obvious he mainly socialized in the US. Then he went for three years for career reasons to France and Germany and then returned to the US for the rest of his career. And he holds American citizenship.

Where somebody is born is actually irrelevant, mostly somebody gets just the nationality of their parents (except when you are born in the US or in some country that has some special rules about acquiring nationality). For football players being born abroad or having parents with a different passport just opens new career options, meaning to play for a different national team than than from the country they are usually living.

The term expatriate is indeed not firm. When you have been in a country for some time as an expatriate and over time it becomes your main place of residence, you aren't an expatriate anymore. When determining an expatriate status you always have to start by identifying someone's main place of residence. And this case this pretty obvious the US. Therefore the player can only be an expatriate of the United States. DrunkenGerman (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand your "mainly socialized" point - what does it mean/matter? He could have moved to the States and had foster parents at the age of 17, that does not mean he grew up in the States and spent lots of time there, so not "pretty obvious" at all. Having a 2nd nationality/citizenship does not matter either - as I said earlier, do you intend for all players who have a 2nd nationality to 'lose' their expatriate status? Given the global nature of the sport that would (I imagine) be a LOT of players. And of course birth place is important, other than in extreme examples where somebody was born in a foreign country where e.g. his parents were on holiday. But that does not apply to Soumaré. Giant Snowman 18:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, what I mean with "mainly socialized" is this: Growing up in a country, speaking the language, adopting its values and culture determines the personality of a person in many respects. This is why I am so bothered about only using FIFA/sports nationalities in the lead paragraph, I think it leads to wrong implications about a person's origin and allegiance.

Also I look at football players mainly as migrant workers, also in regards of choosing the FIFA/sports nationality. It's in most cases just a way of optimizing their careers.

Then there is this term "expatriate". In the case of Soumare I even did further research and found out, that in fact you were right. He actually left Mali with two, lived in France until 16 and came then to the US. Link But in general I would strictly apply to determine first the actual origin of a player and then decide on the country of his expatriate status. Someone who wasn't socialized in a certain country can also not leave it, what then excludes being an expatriate of that country. DrunkenGerman (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

By definition, an expatriate is a person living outside the country of their citizenship. Being born in Mali makes Soumaré a citizen of Mali, therefore he was an expatriate of Mali. Just because he wasn't socialized in Mali doesn't mean he wasn't an expatriate; the fact that he played for Mali just reiterates the fact that he was an expatriate of Mali. The consensus at this project is that the lead states the footballer's nationality as recognized by FIFA. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Jkudlick, this is incorrect. An expatriate is someone who leaves his native country.[14] This has therefore basically nothing to do with citizenship and also requires the move to leave the native country. Native country has therefore also be defined and in my point of view this requires more than just birth, so a person also has to have lived some time there, consciously not only just time after birth as infant.

And btw, as stated above, I have more than serious concerns about this project's approach to the nationality in the lead. DrunkenGerman (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@DrunkenGerman: You can have your opinion regarding nationality, citizenship, and one's "native country," but the country in which a person is born (i.e. native country) is usually–though not always–the country of that person's citizenship and nationality under international law; there are exceptions for the children of diplomats and military personnel serving abroad. If John Doe were born in Foo to Foovian parents, there would be no question regarding his citizenship even if his family were to move to Bar, Tar, or Sna when he was very young. However, if he were born in Foo to Barian parents who are in Foo on a diplomatic mission, then he would be Barian under international law, not Foovian. FIFA nationality is based on one's citizenship, not on one's country of residence. I was born and raise in the United States; do I suddenly become Canadian if I move to Canada but don't gain citizenship? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well actually the problem is that FIFA nationality and the country where football players are born and raised differ in many cases. National Football Associations are headhunting for players who could change FIFA nationality on a grand scale. Often players play for countries there have never visited before and don't even speak the language.

And we are also living in a world where migration is widespread. Soumare was raised in France, and I read somewhere he also holds also a French passport. So actually he is now a Malian-French-American footballer. It's wrong to only mention his Malian nationality in the lead paragraph, as it reflects only a very small portion of his actual life. In fact he is now 30 and spent 27,5 years of that in France and the US. DrunkenGerman (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bloody hell @DrunkenGerman:, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your "growing up socialized" is nigh on impossible to reference for the vast majority of players and and is just your personal preference. We have a long established method of categorizing footballers - it's not perfect, but it works. Giant Snowman 07:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And again, no substantial argumentation. Yeah it works absolutely great, there is only the tiny issue of the widespread incorrect use of the term expatriate and the misleading simplified naming of only the latest sport nationality in the lead by omitting all other nationalities, which leads to wrong implications to readers.

Also this issues mainly refer to players who have changed their sports nationality. Nowadays in times of heavy migration, you have in some countries numbers of up to 30-50 % in each new year's batch of players becoming professional who have a migration background and are therefore eligible to change sports nationality. So the incorrect/simplified use of expatriate statuses/nationalities becomes more and more questionable and problematic.

Finally, as this issues are usually accompanied by media reports about players switching sports nationality allegiance, it is actually pretty simply to reference. Additionally by having the birth place and the youth clubs, it's a children's play to track a football player's biography. DrunkenGerman (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this with fresh eyes and a neutral POV have just seen it, based on the above and the sources linked to, IMO there really shouldn't be any need for a discussion on this - he was born in Mali, more than likely to Malian parents, thus making him, clearly, a Malian former international football player. Any other nationalities/citizenships gained through inheritance or through residing in country x for y number of years is just a point of trivia that should be noted either in the personal section or as a footnote at the end of the lead. I, for example, was born in Scotland to English parents living there at the time, therefore my primary nationality is Scottish, and my second nationality is English. Were I good enough and lucky enough to get called up for Scotland, and notable enough to warrant a page about myself, I would expect the lead to read "...is a Scottish pro footballer who plays for..." with a line elsewhere in the article noting my English nationality e.g.: "...was eligible for England but rejected a call up by (England manager) because he wanted to play for Scotland".

With someone like Diego Costa or James McCarthy, it's a different scenario, they chose to represent a different country to their primary nationality (Costa > Brazilian but plays for Spain; McCarthy > Scottish but plays for ROI). In these situations it's probably best, IMO, to go with the current format on their respective pages: "...is a pro footballer who plays for x club and y country." and then later in the lead section mention their choice to play for that country instead of brazil/scotland etc. Note:Their choosing to play for Spain/ROI doesn't make them Spanish/Irish footballers - they are still legally Brazilian/Scottish regardless of who they play for (unless citizenship of that country is revoked for some reason). douts (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Who says your "primary nationality" is that of the country you're born in? That's not the case legally at all. It's only a minority of countries that give automatic citizenship at birth based on birth therein anyway (see jus soli), most operate based on the parents' citizenship/s (see jus sanguinis). People move around the world so much these days that it is incredibly common to be born one place and hold a different nationality at birth. The case of Scottish, English, Welsh, NI is different as they are all covered by the single British citizenship, but that's a different conversation really.

You seem to imply above that Diego Costa is "still legally Brazilian", but if he were not a Spanish citizen he would not be eligible to play for Spain in the first place. My understanding is that he's a dual citizen, so he is still legally Brazilian, but my point is in legal terms he is equally Spanish.

Anyway: per WP:OPENPARA a person's birthplace or previous nationalities don't belong in the opening sentence unless they're relevant to notability. We have the birthplace in the infobox anyway, clearly on the right of the page, so there's no real reason to have it in the opening sentence anyway in my opinion; it's not like we're hiding it by leaving it out. In footballing terms the pertinent thing is the "sporting" nationality—that is the country the person plays for—so IMO the favoured wording should be either "X is a professional footballer who plays for Lilliput United and Syldavia" or alternatively "X is a Syldavia international footballer who plays for Lilliput United". In both cases the explanation of other nationalities, place of birth etc should go further down. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing, WP:OPENPARA. I did take a deeper look at, and copied the text here for a better overview:

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.

That first thing that confuses me is the or if notable mainly for past events part. Isn't notability not always based on past events? Here for football articles the notability starts with the first cap in a fully professional league.

Then there is this "citizen, national or permanent resident" part. As I have mentioned before, Football Associations are headhunting in foreign countries for players with a matching migration background. So players are becoming notable and well-known in their home country, then are acquired by some foreign Association and their nationality in the lead paragraph is changed, the original nationality deleted. So okay there is still the birth place in the info box, but only a stated birthplace doesn't really reflect what the home country of the player actually is, since a lot players are just born abroad or came to the country where they grew up as infants. That's why I would go for "home country–sports nationality", e.g. in the case of Diego Costa as Brazilian–Spanish football player.

The previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability part I would say doesn't apply here, because I think it's important for a footballer where he was athletically and mentally educated. As e.g. this explains why a player speaks certain languages and behaves in certain ways. Also it gives additional information about why e.g. a Jamaican national football player did stay his entire career and afterwards in the UK. (I would call him then English–Jamaican) DrunkenGerman (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He will be a Malian citizen until this is somehow revoked. Everything else is not correct. Kante4 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He lived in France between the ages of 2 and 16, and played there for 3 years (total = 17 years), then spent. Only about 10 years in the States - so why is his American-ness more important to you than his French-ness? Giant Snowman 19:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was before I did some research. First I believed what the wikipedia article said and assumed that he had moved to the US as an infant directly from Mali. Now he is for me personally predominantly French, since he was socialized/grew up there. DrunkenGerman (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

But that is not based on any policy, guidelines, or sources - it is your personal preference. If he spends 18 years in Germany (for example) will he become 'German' in your eyes? You HAVE to see how ridiculous your stance is, please. Giant Snowman 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You are getting off the point. The discussion is of general nature, you should build on what Cliftonian and I have discussed about WP:OPENPARA, when you seriously want to participate in the discourse. By stating before that this was my personal view of Soumaré I made clear that this was not a contribution to the current state of our thinking process. DrunkenGerman (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OPENPARA does not apply here for a number of reasons - 1) it is long established practice at WP:FOOTY to include the nationality in the intro for all players; 2) you yourself violated your own new-found interpretation of OPENPARA by writing 'Malian-American'; 3) OPENPARA has no effect whatsoever on categories. Giant Snowman 09:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To 1) I question this practice since it leads to several issues, I have already stated. So it make sense to go back to a higher and fundamental guideline and discuss from that point on to identify a better solution.

To 2) A discussion/discourse is a process. It's pretty healthy to reconsider your own opinion when new information is available. Also I did write Malian-American far before we started even the discourse. What does not mean that Malian-American could not be an option in the end again.

To 3) Yes, not directly. But it some ways it is also a connected topic. DrunkenGerman (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You've contradicted yourself in 1 & 2, do you even know your own argument any more? As for 3, categories and opening paragraphs are completely different. Giant Snowman 11:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? Do you have anything substantial to contribute to the matter? DrunkenGerman (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, wjhat are you trying to say - you've said we shouldn't have any nationality in the opening, then you said we should have two. Which is it?! Giant Snowman 12:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Where did I say there should be no nationality in the opening? If there should be one or two or maybe even three may depend on the individual case or what guidelines are eventually agreed upon. Just read my last post regarding WP:OPENPARA from 15:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC). That was my latest actual contribution to the discussion. DrunkenGerman (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what you were saying with OPENPARA. But you have also said you would go for "home country–sports nationality", which in Soumaré's example does not include America at all. Giant Snowman 12:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes as general rule, I would propose "home country–sports nationality" (or vice versa; only important that order to be standardized) which in Soumare's case would be French-Malian, provided there is consensus about the definition of home country as the place where a player was trained/educated/bred mainly. And yes I would leave out America, although he also spent there a significant amount of his formative years in high school and university (as he spent far more time of them in France). DrunkenGerman (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

But that is not supported by any policy, guideline, or consensus. Giant Snowman 13:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that proposal is based upon OPENPARA and now we are having the discourse about that in here. DrunkenGerman (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No we're not. This is not a discussion about removing all mention of nationality from the opening paragraph. This is a discussion about players losing 'expatriate' status in your mind. Giant Snowman 13:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we are having this discussion, have you actually read all posts? And this discussion has to be done first, because the incorrect use of the expatriate statuses is derived from the simplified use of nationalities in the leads - so first things first. And by way, please remain civilized. DrunkenGerman (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Who's having the discussion? At the minute it's just me and you bickering, you're the only one pushing for it and you've contradicted yourself. Giant Snowman 13:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I see contributions by Jkudlick, douts and Cliftonian. The actual problem of this discussion are you, accusing me of thousands of things I did allegedly wrong and what guidelines I violated or misinterpreted or whatever. And basically you are just never ever adding any argument for any kind of solution. I would say that's a pretty destructive and disruptive behavior. I even will have to open a new discussion because of all your spam. DrunkenGerman (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

But we're the only ones continuing, and those contributions (other than Cliftonian's) weren't on OPENPARA. BTW you are now coming across as hysterical. Giant Snowman 14:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then I have to figure out a way to pass the issue to a higher level. And personally you should really learn to argue on a halfway educated level, I feel like I'm talking to a seven-year old. DrunkenGerman (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Conference (MLS)

I am confused by this article, there is nothing explaining what it should be about at the top. It's just a list of team at the moment throughout the years. To me it seems poorly constructed. I wanted to know the setup of the league, how it operates, but nothing is there. Not to mention there is only one single citation on the whole page. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I see the same problems with Western Conference (MLS), it seems all the effort went into Major League Soccer and everyone forgot how important the other two are. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The logo is also outdated since the MLS logo is now different. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

^ It looks like the logos are for the specific conference logo, separate from the MLS logo. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

William Miller (actor, born 1996)

I was looking at this article and was wondering if he should just a footy infobox? He doesn't need all the acting stuff in it as it's in the main article anyway. Also I am not very good at creating infoboxes Govvy (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 10 November 2024

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Malaysia national under-23 football team#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 23:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Assists and goalscorer tables

I recently removed Assists and goalscorers table from the season pages of the current Italian football (Milan for example) under the following reasons, with Italia2006 and Bigdottawa reverting this and opening a discussion (and also Vaselineeeeeeee who didn't bother with discussions or explanations). I'm bringing it up here to get the broader consensus.

Assists I removed as there have been endless discussions about them on this talk page already and the consensus is not to add them, as the definition and numbers are different between sites, if mentioned at all, so it is non-verifiable.
Goalscorers tabe I removed since it is a repetition of info found in the "Appearances and goals" table above it. Italia2006 claims it is for ranking and to include own goals. I don't think a line of own goals warrants adding another table repeating the info, and could be achieved with a line of prose at the bottom of the apps+goals table, and if ranking is the problem, I'd propose making the apps+goals table sortable.

Thanks for the input. --SuperJew (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) No one is contesting your removal of the assists table and (2) I've enumerated about five times now why the goalscorers table is not repetition of info. I seriously can't believe you're making this big a deal out of it considering you're not actually a contributor to Italian club football season articles. @Vaselineeeeeeee: Italia2006 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) Here's the verbatim quote by Bigdottawa: "The removal of assists is not acceptable either. Your reason is a non-verifiable source, when all league websites have the information. It's the same source as goal scoring. You seem to have gone completely overboard to remove all goal scoring and assists tables from every page. Ridiculous." I saw that you agree with me Italia2006, but I'm bringing it up here so we can remove them all without being called ridiculous. (2) And I've given you solutions to your minor worries. And also query your assumption of who's a contributor to what. --SuperJew (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not an assumption, it's a fact. And I'll state this here again so there's no misunderstanding: Yes, the appearances table also has the goals scored by the players. The goalscorer table is there as a (1) ranking, (2) an overall tally of goals scored in each competition and the total goals scored throughout the season which thus includes (3) own goals. You'll notice at the bottom of each table it says "Totals", something not in the appearances table. It is not redundant information. As for that argument you made about human error, you could make that about any aspect of the article, it's a pointless contention. Lastly, I'm not concerned with your "solutions" because they're not solutions, since nothing is "broken". Italia2006 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So what, we should change years and years of something that has worked perfectly fine all of a sudden because you have a disagreement with it? I should have to find an entirely different table, change all of the information for all 20 teams for not just this season but for the past ten years and more? No, I don't think so. Italia2006 (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As Italia2006 said, it's not a repetition of info as the goalscorer table organizes the goalscoring info in a way that clearly shows the order of the top goalscorer for the club down to the bottom. Also, other wiki club articles like 2016-17 Arsenal F.C. season include it as well as others (I'll search for more). I know that isn't a concrete reason for its removal or inclusion, but they are used and we believe they do show this info in a different and relevant way that the other table does not. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fixing what clearly isn't broken, and since we have enough work to do with each article and the project as a whole we really don't have time to deal with your senseless removal of content; it's a distraction that's completely unnecessary. Italia2006 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit the goalscoring table isn't as important in my eyes as the assists table, so I'll leave this here for more opinions about the goalscoring table. And I will re-remove the assists tables reverted by Bigdottawa? --SuperJew (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't realize he had re-added them. Vaseline and I will talk to him, because I completely agree with the removal of the assists. This is why I really want to compromise with you. Keep one, get rid of the other, and we'll all be happy. Italia2006 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Italia2006 Why not have only appearances table instead of appearances+goals (as I'm seeing in some older seasons)? --SuperJew (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

SuperJew As I said, it's because it organizes the goals in an order that shows the top goalscorers sequentially. Also, in the older seasons, the tables have probably not been added because there were less people editing at that time. Just like this year (and some last year) we added the disciplinary record section which is pretty new for Serie A season articles. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I understood your point about the goalscoring table. (Personally I still think it's redundant since you can just make the table sortable, but not the point of this comment). My question was why not have a table for appearances only and a table for goals only? --SuperJew (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. I guess it's plausible, but it probably wouldn't be consistent with most of the sport's seasons articles. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The two tables present similar information but in different and equally important ways. Italia2006 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary change, that's the point. Italia2006 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Should we then remove the assist tables from previous seasons? It wouldn't be right to only take it out of the current season and not the others for consistency's sake. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removed them as far back as 2012-13. I don't really have much more time today to go further back, and anyways as you go back there's less assists tables, with 2012-13 having none. --SuperJew (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that, perfectly fine. Italia2006 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

This whole thing is six of one and half a dozen of another. Having different analyses of the same information is not the same as redundancy. Italia2006 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I consider this matter closed. Italia2006 (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

National team hat-tricks

Category:National association football team hat-tricks - so please remind me what's notable about these? Giant Snowman 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japan national football team hat-tricks (2nd nomination). 05:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the "nationalteam-update" infobox parameter

Just to notify anyone who might be interested, a proposal to rename this parameter can be found at Template talk:Infobox football biography#nationalteam-update. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

New Here

I've been updating stuff for a little bit and stumbled across this page. Do I have to sign up or is it just an association and if so how do I? Luke Littlejohn (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. First you want to click the + symbol at the top of the page to start a new section, that would have put your message at the bottom of this page, where the more recent discussions take place. Secondly, to answer your question you can simply add yourself to this list. I see you have created an article for Gianluca Conte. Good work! There is so much to explain but you seem to have the basics down, you'll pick it up as you go along, referencing is important. Have fun!--Echetus Xe 10:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Zema and Nathan Abbey

Just spotted the anomaly of Nathan Abbey and Zema Abbey, who are brothers—but Nathan's article says his parents came from Ghana, while Zema's said his parents were from Saint Vincent in the Caribbean. Anyone able to shed some light? Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There's an anonymous editor who takes pleasure in adding random and sometimes quite unlikely ethnic origins to articles. That's where Nathan's "Ghanaian" parents came from; they started off making him Jamaican. I've removed it. Zema's St Vincent was someone trying to correct that editor's addition of Ghana. They are of St Vincent descent, see e.g. Nathan playing for St Vincent & the Grenadines against Wycombe, or speculation on a possible callup for competitive matches. But I've no idea whether that's through one parent, both, a grandparent or whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Struway — Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Swindon Town F.C.#Shirt sponsors

I mentioned me concern on the talk page the other day but got no response, I think the table is overkill on the article. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, it's awful. Number 5 7 14:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolute insanity. I don't personally think we need lists of sponsors in club articles at all, but if they must be in there then an absolutely colossal table like that definitely isn't appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Is José Francisco de Morais notable?

Per topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. He played international football for Brazil, one of the top teams in the world -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have only been a squad member of the Copa América squad though.[15] Hack (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

67 apps in Campeonato Brasileiro,[16] 200+ appearances and multiple titles in Mineiro state league,[17] won the 1976 Copa Libertadores with Cruzeiro,[18] played in the 1976 Intercontinental Cup... Looks notable enough to me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Son Heung-min

Is it me, or is the picture in the infobox a breach of copyright? Govvy (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No one replied, it's just when I looked at the image, it's stripped out from another image which is of high quality professional image. 1 I am under the impression that it shouldn't be on commons or wiki. And is possible be a breach of copyright. Govvy (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the licensing on File:LG ‘로보킹’, 구자철 손흥민 선수를 응원합니다 (1) (cropped).jpg on the Commons, the image has come from Flickr with an appropriate licence. In which case, I guess it's fine. Joseph2302 21:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems okay Commonwise, as it's from Flickr, but maybe it was uploaded to Flickr illegally, but I'm really no expert on copyright. I think a better place to raise the question would be on Commons itself, where people are more experienced with copyright issues and in case where the copyright is wrong will deal with it. --SuperJew (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkish teams

Are the Turkish soccer leagues TFF Second League, TFF Third League and Turkish Amateur Football Leagues considered notable per WP:FOOTYN#League notability? The reason I am asking is because I came across quite a number of individual team articles/stubs such as Istanbul Maltepespor, Zeytinburnuspor, Marmaris Belediye GSK, Menemen Belediyespor, Düzcespor, while checking some non-free logos. The articles/stubs are really only a few sentences each , usually unsourced (maybe there's an external link or two), and often have been tagged with maintenance templates for quite some time. Are clubs such as these notable per WP:FOOTYN#Club notability if their respective leagues are notable or are do they need the sigcov required by WP:ORG? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If the clubs have played in the national cup competition (note: qualifying rounds do not count) then they would generally be considered notable. Giant Snowman 07:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Yabes Roni Malaifani possibly notable?

Hi I was interested in starting an article for Yabes Roni Malaifani, you can see his article on Indonesian Wikipedia here. Malaifani made a couple of appearances per soccerway here & here but I am not sure if they are professional league matches. There however seems to be a good deal of hype about him 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is he notable enough or should I wait? Thank you Inter&anthro (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The competition he played in was the President's Cup, which was set up after the league was suspended by the Indonesian FA and after the Indonesian FA was then suspended by FIFA. As it is therefore not an officially-sanctioned competiton I would be inclined to say that no, he is not notable. Giant Snowman 07:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or split

France Football have announced that they are bringing back the Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) award after their partnership with FIFA for the FIFA Ballon d'Or has come to an end. Someone's proposing a merger on the talk page of the FIFA Ballon d'Or.TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting the project, TBJ. But to anyone who may want to comment, don't bother yet. I was hasty opening the discussion; it will be more productive in the near future when more details are available. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Gulf Associations

I think this move from Gulf Cup Federation to Gulf Football Federation was wrong. Could somebody double-check? newer source talking about a renaming from GFF to GCF, source also mentioning the gcf. But was the GFF just a preliminary/temporary name, or did that actually exist beforehand? -Koppapa (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I added more sources. GFF was a preparatory working title. Could an admin revert the move please? -Koppapa (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

World football transfer record

This list is not compatibile with Progression of British football transfer fee record

This list include transfer which has been registed before start of the FIFA (1904) Dawid2009 (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your concern, could you clarify......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what the OP is saying, but we have inconsistencies between the two on things like fees and even names (compare the second name in both lists) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FC "CSKA-SOFIA" Sofia and PFC CSKA Sofia

Is the first a valid split from the second? It looks like another Rangers F.C. scenario with bankruptcy, relegation, ownership disputes, so I've no idea whether two articles are warranted or not. Nthep (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I was about to ask for some help on the matter, as we are currently having fans taking over the content. I really don't know what to make of it all. If anyone would be willing to help, I can provide them with translations of all the relevant info. My feeling is that a compromise could be accepted by all parties if it comes from some outside (outside Bulgaria, that is) source.--Laveol ^T 10:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Team of the week

Is a list of "Team of the week" in league seasons (for example 2016 A Lyga) notable? I disagree a bit with User:Respublik. Qed237 (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Any comments? Qed237 (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think no, per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 21:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well like I mentioned it's official and fair evaluation of players made by the league itself(not by some other sources), so I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed(especially when there aren't any other types of relevant frequent awards and so it isn't redundant information). Also it is used in other professional leagues topics, like Major League Soccer. Respublik (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Respublik: please see WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Read first one before replying first message, couldn't see which point he was pointing to. Could you be more specific? :) Respublik (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles should not be excessiv lists of stats/information. Qed237 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fagio Augusto and Japan?

Hi all, in a recent article I started I saw that it said here that Fagio Augusto plays for Tokyo Musashino City FC. This information is found on a couple other websites such as this one. Except that this information is not included on his soccerway profile and more importantly Fagio Augusto is not included in the roster on the club's official website. I put "reportedly plays for Tokyo Musashino" on the article, but I am not sure if this is enough. Any ideas? Inter&anthro (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say he reported played since I can't find anything from the club itself, the roster does not include him on their website and nothing on twitter as well. Soccerway won't help as they don't track the Japanese Football League (Only J1 League and J2 League). If you want, you can literally go through every match-report on their website and see if he was ever in the squad. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would question whether he's notable enough to warrant an article - does 3 mins as a substitute for his national team (his only appearance to date), whilst never having played professionally for a club meet the criteria? douts (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If he's played international football, he meets the WP:NFOOTBALL criteria. Hack (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bristol City F.C.

Would anyone on this wikiproject be able to take a look at Bristol City F.C.? There is a banner at the top for more citations but more worryingly there are banners (from 3 years ago) on the history section suggesting it may be too long & be slanted towards recent events. I don't know enough about the general structure of football club articles to know if these are appropriate (I also don't know enough about this club or football in general to be able to tackle it).— Rod ^talk 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What determines players' nationalities?

Is it a player's allegiance to a national team that ultimately determines his nationality as presented on Wikipedia? --Theurgist (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Essentially yes, as that is his or her 'sporting' nationality, regardless of other legal nationalities concurrently or previously held. — Cliftonian (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If referring to the narrative opening of the article it is often easier to refer to the club, and international team represented, than describing a player as being a particular nationality. Diego Costa is a fine example. You can then expand on the nationality / background later on. If for a flag in an award table or similar, then yes his international country represented (or at least nominally declared for). Koncorde (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It is the narrative openings that I mean. Typically, a player is described as a "XXXian footballer" where XXX is the country he represents internationally, or if he was born elsewhere, then he is a "YYYian-born XXXian footballer". But that's sometimes a bit misleading, isn't it. A player born, raised, and living in France is a "French footballer", and forever remains so, unless he gets capped for some other country he's eligible for, e.g. Gabon (where his grandfather is from) or Cyprus (where he spent a few years earlier in his career), in which case he suddenly becomes a "French-born Gabonese/Cypriot footballer", as if he ceases to be a Frenchman with that act.

I like the example of Diego Costa, and I've also noticed that biographies of non-sports people with such "controversial" nationalities tend to avoid directly stating the person's nationality. Articles should only present objective facts (such as born where, lived/naturalized where, having ancestral links where), and not try to judge if the person is more of a Frenchman or more of something else. --Theurgist (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What about the fact that a person's country of birth and nationality at birth are not necessarily the same–or the fact that it is quite common to have parents of differing nationality, and thus be born with citizenship of two or even more countries? Do we just default back to the place of birth as the 'real' nationality, even where the person could have left as an infant and grew up somewhere completely different, or indeed never even held the nationality of his birthplace in the first place? No, in my view best to steer clear and go based on national team in the first sentence, as you describe above–then give a proper, objective summary of the facts further down. — Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I never said that the person's country of birth should be taken by default as his "real" nationality. It shouldn't. But neither should his national team allegiance. (Especially as national team allegiances could be based on factors other than faithfulness to the particular nation, and thus could be somewhat arbitrary. A player eligible for multiple national teams will probably consider where he would fit best and where he would benefit most before choosing which one to represent.) Did you even take a look at the lead of Diego Costa (permalink)? --Theurgist (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you had said that, Theurgist (re: 'real' nationality), I was just pointing out that I have often come across people who seem to think along those lines. Sorry for not making myself clear, no slight on yourself was meant. Yes, I've seen the lead of Diego Costa. Cheers — Cliftonian (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This sort of stuff is particularly controversial with "Italian-Argentine" and similar, or those historic footballers who represented multiple nations (which is becoming more common in recent years with relaxation of rules), or where federations split due to changing international boundaries (particularly the former communist states which are still evolving). In my opinion most of the time the mention of the nationality is not required when they have represented a national federation, instead you would mention the national federation. You can then deal with more detailed nuanced nationality based arguments in context later in the article. Unfortunately a lot of articles still try to settle such nationality arguments within the first 10 words and turn into mangled messes. Koncorde (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Explain the situation and leave judgments to the readers. --Theurgist (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If a player has not represented a country, or made a declaration in favour of a country to represent, then we use reliable sources. Giant Snowman 07:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As wikipedia had it own policy on POB and nationality, i feel crazy that some footballer were linked to their POB (and parent ethnicity) instead of country that he spent almost entire life, given that they also hold that country's citizenship. POB was easy to identify but the policy within WP:Footy should be refined. Matthew_hk t c 12:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 30, 2016

Pinging Parutakupiu. Any thoughts on this edit? We can't use these slashes at TFA (per MOS:SLASH), but aside from that, the UEFA Champions League kind of is and kind of isn't the same thing as the European Cup; many rules were different. Should we list these as separate titles or the same title, and if it's the same, what do we call it? (We have a cap of around 1150 characters, so if we use a very long name for the title, that's less space available to list other accomplishments.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of that guideline. Please do revert those specific changes then; it's preferable to use the most recent designation. Besides, this distinction is explained in the article. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of reserves/youth squads in infobox

Hi,

I was wondering regarding including caps+goals for reserves/youth squads in infobox. As far as I know we don't include them when it's a completely youth league (for example National Youth League), but we do when it is a reserves/youth side playing in a senior league at a lower tier (for example Phoenix Premiers in the ASB Premiership, Melbourne Victory Youth in the NPL Victoria, Sturm Graz II in the Regionalliga, Barcelona B in the Segunda División B, etc.). I was wondering how do we consider teams in the Premier League 2? Should Mark Birighitti's 3 caps for Swansea City U23s be in the infobox?

Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a completely youth league, with no connection to the English football league system, so no. In my opinion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, definitely not. Apart from anything else, we've got precisely zero chance of sourcing the equivalent data for players from more than a couple of years ago, so it would be horribly misleading to show it for current players...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to understand, if it is a completely youth league, since they seem to have only U23 sides, but they can compete in the Premier League Cup and the EFL Trophy which have senior sides. --SuperJew (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The Premier League Cup does not have senior sides -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As above; only include stats for a youth team if the youth team plays in the normal senior football pyramid. Giant Snowman 20:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot. Question answered. I was mainly confused because soccerway does record those caps. --SuperJew (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Help to identify a 90s/00s goalkeeper

Hi. Looking for help identifying a goalkeeper from the 90s/00s. Possibly very late 80s. My recollection of him:

He was decidedly short for a 'keeper but was good at his trade, presumably very good at jumping!
He played on a fairly regular basis for at least a couple of seasons in England's top division
I have Everton stuck in my head, and thought it may have been Paul Gerrard, but it can't have been him (6ft 2in!)

Any help from these lame clues gratefully accepted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Poole at Leicester? Koncorde (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

jeez, tough one but the first one that popped into my head was Fabien Barthez Govvy (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not Barthez and I don't think it was Poole either. His first name may indeed have begun with a K though. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

According to PetScan there are 118 English goalkeepers who played in the Premier League... Giant Snowman 17:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Paul Cooper was decidedly lacking in height. Johnlp (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Pressman? Dmitri Kharine? Could also have a look at this, quite nostalgic! [19] C 679 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no goalkeeper under six foot who played regularly for Everton in that period.--Echetus Xe 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Keith Branagan? I was thinking Pressman, but it turns out he was quite tall – maybe his width made him seem shorter! Number 5 7 19:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Really appreciate you helping. The K may be misleading and the dating suggests it may be pre-Premier League. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it a photo you are working from, or just a reference or old memory? Between Championship Manager and old age I think I could name every keeper to have played since 1986 if you have any other inkling. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't help but think of Bruce Grobbelaar - J man708 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

FC or Football Club

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_FC&diff=738467499&oldid=738251967 All based on a photo of the club's exterior. I pointed out, on the article's talk page, that the club is commonly called Toronto FC (more than 1000 times more often in news source, also provided on the talk page) but there are two club fans who wanted to make the change. Feel free to revert my revert or explain WP:COMMONNAME to the editors on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As explained on talk page, I think you are wrong. Per example Inter Milan amongst many many others. Koncorde (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the FC stand for Football Club? I seem to remember a thread a while back where there was actually a club where the "FC" part simply meant FC and sources were provided to support this. Unless this is another example like that then the full name of the club is Toronto Football Club. COMMONNAME should be, and seemingly is, applied correctly to the article title. However, this parameter in the infobox is for the full name and therefore logically would not be the common name. Fenix down (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Article at Toronto FC is correct per Commonname but the fullname parameter should be Toronto Football Club. Kante4 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that's basically what everyone has said (and evidence has been provided from the club's own website), but the argument is continuing on the talk page... Number 5 7 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I pointed him to New York City FC for an example. It should be the same format as that. I've said my piece, I have nothing else to say. Govvy (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Just an extra piece of info - Sydney FC is referred to 100% of the time as just "Sydney FC", however their legal name is "Sydney Football Club". - J man708 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

In the same league, there is also a franchise with the legal name "Melbourne Victory F.C" - someone clearly wasn't a detail person. Hack (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

F.C. may means Football Club, but for F.C. Internazionale Milano S.p.A. case, F.C. just F.C., they register a short name in the company register.(may be a long legal name cause problem on contract) the article actually wrong. Matthew_hk t c 04:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you see the dots after "F" and "C", those indicate content has been removed. What you have basically just done is said that W. G. Grace is the full name of the man otherwise known as William Gilbert Grace, which is not the intention of those full stops. Legal name, registered trademarks etc are all largely irrelevant. The "Full Name" is an opportunity to prevent the full name of a club that is otherwise known by its condensed format. Koncorde (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant as Toronto FC/New York City FC don't have these dots --SuperJew (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The dots are for that particular example. The absence of the dots doesn't actually change the intent of the abbreviation any more than JK Rowling / J.K Rowling would. Koncorde (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Give it up already! It doesn't matter about number of hits on Google or that it's called soccer in Canada or if Toronto FC is used more often, Toronto Football Club is it's official full name and is stated as such in the full name infobox parameter as Number 57 and others have given sources from the club's website along with others. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Give it up already! It does matter about the number of hits on Google. They're a soccer club and they use FC to appeal to fans of the sport in Europe just as Real Salt Lake do. TFC is a soccer club and Real Salt Lake are neither Spanish nor granted royal ascent by a Spanish King. They're just names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Relevance criteria for current squad navbox templates

(This topic was previously raised as an aside in Squad templates turned into redirects but did not come to an conclusion there.)

For the proposed deletions of current squad templates the deletion rationales given in Tfd were either "does not play in a fully-professional league" or "has no notable players/navigational value". While these two often go hand-in-hand, as many of the better (notable) players leave after a club relegates, this is not always the case. Some examples:

Le Mans FC with 7 notable players in the French 5th tier (3 levels below fully professional)
FC Farul Constanţa with 4 notable players + 1 notable manager in the Romanian 4th tier (3 levels below fully professional)
FC Unirea Alba Iulia with 3 notable players in the Romanian 3rd tier (2 levels below fully professional)
Here it was shown by Secret Agent Julio that German 4th tier (1 level below fully professional) clubs have between 3 and 15 notable players

I would like to invite everybody here to state their opinion and I hope that these two options below reasonably reflect the available alternatives (if not, please add further)!

@Frietjes, GiantSnowman, Jogurney, Joseph2302, Mattythewhite, Number 57, Rhinen, Secret Agent Julio, Struway2, and SuperJew: As you have participated in earlier discussions either here or in Tfd, I would appreciate if you joined this poll to have different opinions reflected! Kq-hit (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

→ Option 1 Current squad navigational boxes should be maintained only for clubs playing in a fully professional league

→ Option 2 Current squad navigational boxes should be maintained for any club with enough^{[please quantify]} notable players to provide navigational value

Option 1 Since we do have the fully pro league guideline and criteria, I reckon we should go by that rather than per number of notable players currently in the club. In general clubs not playing in an fully pro league don't have many notable players, and those who do are the exception. I also feel it'd be inconsistent for some clubs in a league to have squad templates, but others not to. --SuperJew (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"clubs not playing in an fully pro league don't have many notable players" - that doesn't necessarily follow. The National League is not a FPL, yet Forest Green Rovers and Eastleigh each have (by my count) 16 players with articles...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Option 2 - the purpose of a navigation box is to navigate between related articles, as long as we have enough of them in a squad template then it's notable. I'd say maybe 5-7 is a good start? Giant Snowman 06:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2. What GiantSnowman said: 5–7 should be enough to provide navigational value. The FPL thing determines whether a player might be presumed notable. It has nothing to say on the notability of clubs, or on the likelihood of a non-FPL club having enough notable players to warrant a navigational box. Chris mentions the non-FPL National League; the clubs in the national division of that league average at about 13/14 notable players with existing articles per squad. Scottish League One clubs average about 11. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 is bonkers. That would mean deleting the squad navbox of every club that gets relegated out of FPLs each year, and (re)creating a navbox for every club that gets promoted to that level each year. FPL is a guideline for player notability, it is not a hard and fast rule. The dividing line between "FPL" and "not FPL" is much more blurred than this proposal would suggest. For example, in Scotland recently you've had four of the bigger clubs in the country (Rangers, Heart of Midlothian, Hibernian and Dundee United) in league(s) that are not fully professional, because the second tier (Scottish Championship) regularly contains at least one club that is part-time. "In general clubs not playing in an fully pro league don't have many notable players" is ridiculously wrong for similar reasons. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment As I said I based my vote off the fact that we do have the FPL criteria, and it's used for notability. As indeed the case of the "not really fully-pro leagues" but do have notable players, perhaps it's time to review the whole FPL idea? Maybe have it FPL + top tier clubs? Or instead of fully pro leagues, have it by fully pro teams? Cheers, --SuperJew (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Option2 5-7, per Giant Snowman and Struway. Deleting/recreating navboxes for promotion/relegation seems like hard work. Gricehead (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 and 5–7 per the above. Number 5 7 14:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 If there's sufficient blue links, the templates serve a practical purpose and should therefore be created/retained. Option 1 smacks of zealously touting WP:NFOOTBALL where it doesn't apply. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 Should be based on the number of blue links. However, I disagree with the cutoff point. I think there should be at least 10 blue links, otherwise the club's main article should suffice for links. I do not see the point of having so many surnames without links, does not seem very useful nor informative. Also, should the frequency of updates play a factor? Because there are numerous templates that rarely get updated, therefore the usefulness in navigation diminishes, as the template includes players who are no longer at the club, and new players are missing. In these cases, the template is misleading and is unhelpful. The squad lists on the club's main articles is updated much more frequently, and does a better job. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

How would you measure frequency of updates? Also, I noticed recently an interesting concept related to what you're saying: Boca Junior's squad template doubles as also a navigation squad for players pages and also as a squad list on the club's page. --SuperJew (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's pretty interesting, looks like a good way to keep the template and article in sync (and possibly the club's season article). I have not seen that style before, but I'd like to use it if it makes things that simple. Also, by frequency of updates I refer to some of the templates I have seen which are extremely out of date, sometimes not having many edits since 2013 or 2014, would depend on the situation. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It really like this template. Is it something to consider to create more of these (or expand)? Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Option 2 Deleting all the squad templates of relegated clubs does not make sense if there are sufficient blue links. 5-7 links are okay for me. --Jaellee (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 If a club gets relegated from Football League Two, then are we really going to want to delete their template? Chances are they'll still have lots of players that meet WP:NFOOTY, thus option 1 doesn't make sense. On the other hand, the whole point of templates is to guide users to other Wikipedia articles, so at least a few of the players would need to be notable. Joseph2302 18:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 - if the navigation box serves a valid purpose (linking to relevant articles), then it shouldn't be deleted under some rather arbitrary fully-pro league bright-line rule. I worry that editors may create a batch of articles on non-notables and then create a nav box template for them, but we can always remove the nav box once it is determined that the articles should be deleted. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 for sure. However, for every "relegated team whose notable players leave" there's a Template:Grays Athletic F.C. squad where the notability of the players on a 7th tier team (Isthmian PL) are due to past careers or international play from small countries where nobody is anywhere near the top tiers. So while I don't buy a bright-line, there should be a range where the navbox makes sense, and I think it needs to be greater than halfway useful both qualitatively and quantitatively. MSJapan (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't really understand your point, of course they've inherited their notability due to earlier exploits in their careers - but also a lot of players move upwards and achieve notability through satisfying WP:FOOTY later in their career. --Jimbo^[online] 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 for cases where at least 5 players (manager counts towards this) have WP articles. That figure, by the way, is suggested at WP:NENAN. C 679 11:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 makes the most sense. I don't think a teams stature on the pyramid bears any correlation to navigating through a squad if there are sufficient bluelinks. Be that step 1 or step 21. --Jimbo^[online] 15:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Season articles

I think everyone needs to chill out when it comes to being anal about the guidelines created (remember, these are guidelines, not rules) for footballing articles, mainly in regards to notability. We're currently in a logicless situation wherein a English team playing in the 7th tier can have season articles created about it, but a second division Australian team's season article fails an AfD, without having been given any chances to improve the article. Ditto a player having played in a national cup semi-final (and being named in that national cup's team of the year), but it's completely fine and dandy that a player who played in a single game at the right place and right time is worthy of an article.

I feel as though these sorts of guidelines are followed too closely. They exist because stupid people wish to create a Wikipedia page about their WP:GARAGEBAND

Remember, we're building an encyclopedia. I think far too many people forget this and think it's a big dick contest about following guidelines and shit. - J man708 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is an opinion piece, nothing more. If you have other ideas on notability etc, the thing to do is to formulate them and present them to the community and to arrive at consensus.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

We're not in that situation because the Wimbledon article also fails WP:NSEASONS (the consensus from over a dozen AfDs is that all English season articles outside of the top four fully-professional divisions do); it just hasn't been AfD'd yet. Number 5 7 07:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What about the notability of the players listed? - J man708 (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If a topic doesn't meet subject-specific notability criteria, you need to produce evidence of significant coverage. Based on the link, Schroen seems to be a run-of-the-mill state league player. Hack (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I created the page because I wanted to learn more about him. I used the information I came across to create said page. Clearly a player in his position is going to get more page views than an article over the international player with one match. Surely that warrants creation of the article in a freakin encyclopedia? - J man708 (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Why clearly? This is your personal opinion. Page views on enWiki means nothing in terms of notability, it is the level of third party coverage the subject has received that matters. From a subject-specific guideline perspective, although it is only one appearance, consensus is that Jais Malsarani is more notable than Marcus Schroen, because he has played football at the very highest level possible for someone from his nation.

You note that Schroen should be considered notable because of his team's performance in the FFA Cup, but this is not relevant per WP:NOTINHERITED, the run to the cup semi final is an achievement of his club, not of the individual. It is however, an achievement of note as is being named in the cup's team of the year, so I would ask you to show where the significant independent coverage of Shroen's specific role in this cup run and his naming in the team of the tournament is that would satisfy GNG.

If these achievements are really that notable and his role in them significant then he would surely have received such coverage? If not then it seems that his achievements and those of his team weren't deemed that important by independent media. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a point J man is trying to make is that playing international football for your country is not necessarily the same level for all countries. Case in point, players of the Australia national team are better on average than players of the Vanuatu national team. Or another example the Vieri brothers: Christian played for Italy internationally while Max played for Australia internationally. I'm sure you can tell just by that which one is the better footballer. --SuperJew (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding to my point, Max said in an interview Of course I knew it would be hard to play for Italy - they have one of the best strikers in the world, and he happens to be my brother. So when the offer came from Australia, it wasn't hard to accept., implying that Italy is a better team than Australia. --SuperJew (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Surely, taking part in a national cup semi-final AND being a player being selected in the FFA Cup Team of the Year (the only non fulltime professional) WITH the Sydney Morning Herald, the Herald Sun (Australia's two largest newspaper groups) having articles specifically about him warrants an article? Not to mention the addtional "Routine" information available, which will only add to the article. Currently, the idea that he's not, but when once he makes a 90'+6' minute substitute appearance for a top flight club in a single dead rubber match, he suddenly becomes "notable", even if no further information is ever written about him again? Come on, we all know that's total crap!

Once again, the guidelines are set up so that a player who plays for the Sunday league down the road doesn't have an article. As for the Northern Fury season articles, surely, as they are the only former A-League club taking part in the second tier NPL (and having voiced their intent to get back into the top flight), that they themselves would warrant seasonal articles? - J man708 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No point arguing here about specific player notability, that's an issue at the relevant AfD. Hack (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hack, I'm bringing it up here because I'm trying to find an answer. Seems the right place to me. @Fenix down: seems to actually be closest to providing the answer to this one. If the above mentioned news outlets aren't enough secondary sources to warrant an article, what would additionally be needed to pass GNG.

The point I'm trying to bring up is that Jais Malsarani played one international friendly match in a match watched several hundred people. Marcus Schroen was named as one of two non-top flight players in a national cup team-of-the-year, wherein he played in a semi-final in front of some 6,500 people, has been listed in the aforementioned publications as well as playing both for professional youth teams and the first team of a former national champion (and continental winner) before the age of 18. What more could he do shy of having one sole appearance in a dead rubber match in order to pass the notability guidelines? - J man708 (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The answer is obvious, gain significant reliable coverage in independent sources. Can you point to any non-routine articles that deal specifically with the player, i.e. interviews with the players, career summaries, etc. Looking at the two sources you have provided, I would make the following comments:

SMH - This isn't really coverage of the player, more a series of quotes from a number of individuals, one of whom happens to be Schroen, on South Melbourne, not the player in question.
Herald - This is more substantial, focussing specifically on the player and containing content that could be used to form an encyclopedic article. Not enough on its own to show GNG, but useful nonetheless.

Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

[efltrophy-1] Appearances in the EFL Trophy

[nb 1]