Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 133

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 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

→

Bolding league and cup championships in club season articles

Is this the right or wrong thing to do? PeeJay2K3 has started an edit war on this subject by reverting my edits on the 2006–07 Manchester United F.C. season article. I had bolded United's 1st place finish in the EPL that season, denoting their league title win. PeeJay is suggesting that it is NOT correct to bold league or cup titles in the infobox on the specific season article. While I have seen this as the general rule of thumb when a club wins the Premier League, FA Cup, Bundesliga, Coppa Italia, Champions League, etc. It would be great to find a consensus on this. Thank you all. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You are both edit-warring, not just PeeJay. I have no strong feeling on this case, i normally bold them aswell but i do not know if there is any consensus or what is preferred. Kante4 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of bolding them? I'm not saying it's not correct, I just think you need to justify it with a reason better than "someone did it once and now we all do it". – Pee Jay 21:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer to bold them but I'm perfectly happy to change that if there is a consensus not to bold title wins on season articles. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus to add the bold formatting, not one to stop adding it. The onus is always on the one who wants to include content to justify why that should be, not the other way around. – Pee Jay 15:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the practice started, so peopled could denote and identify championships. You see it throughout wikipedia, beyond just football. If you think that league and cup titles in infobox should not be bolded, then we should also remove all bolding from honours section on the main club articles. Why are they bolded? The same reason for or against should apply in this instance. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you can't compare the two like that and apply the same standard. I'm not denying it makes titles stand out, but again, why do we need to do that? Are people incapable of reading the word "Winners" or "1st" and identifying that it means the club won that competition if it's not bolded? – Pee Jay 17:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Why can you not compare the two? They are both there for the same purpose and they both signify honours won. If you want to standardize something, it should be standardized throughout. Not just pick and choose the places you want it. If there is a purpose for titles being bolded in the honours section then the same purpose should be applied on the infobox in a season article. If there is no purpose, no titles should be bolded anywhere. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly, you can't compare them because one is an infobox and the other is in the main body of the article, where the bolding is used to signify a header. Just in case I've got the wrong end of the stick, can you show me an example of what you mean? – Pee Jay 18:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

See Manchester United F.C.#Honours. Clearly people must struggle with understanding the word Winners unless it's bolded (let alone counting to 1). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, in the body of the article it is used as a header. In the infobox in season articles, bolding the word "Winners" would see one bold entry put next to another (i.e. the parameter header), which would be ridiculous. – Pee Jay 19:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So why is it not equally ridiculous that winners is bolded every time the club has won a different title in their honours section? Why is the word "Winners" even there in the first place? Take Struway2's example of Manchester United, the word "Winners" is bolded 11 times in the honours section. That seems overkill, no? Not to mention, I thought we had already come to the conclusion that any numerical less than 5 should not be next to an honour? And if we use your argument PeeJay2K3 about "Winners" being bolded because it is a header, then we should also bold Runners-up finishes which are included for domestic and international cups but never bolded. Rupert1904 (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we please just talk about the infobox and stop resorting to whataboutism? Make your case for why the text in the infobox should be bolded and let's deal with other things later. – Pee Jay 12:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

But I have done along with others. You seem to be only one against bolding. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm against bolding. The MOS is against bolding. I'm also against bolding things like Winners (1), because it isn't a header, it's part of the content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Struway2 and if we take this stance, then nothing should be bolded. I don't really care either way as long as we have a consensus and everyone follows it. I think it's actually way too repetitive to even write winners. But PeeJay2K3 you can't claim that "Winners" being bolded is that it is a header when "Runners-up" is not bolded. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bolding seems a bit OTT for me. But, WP:BOLDAVOID is also worth mentioning, as our Infobox already falls foul of that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Help with some anon and new users

Hey, so right now we are dealing with some issues regarding ATK Mohun Bagan FC. The name is announced but the debate is on about whether the team is new or a continuation of Mohun Bagan. That can be dealt with via a merger discussion. Why I am here is because I have noticed this week a lot of new users or anon users who seem to comment straight away on the topics and with some knowledge of how wikipedia works. I am not sure if I remember but isn't there a way for admins to look into IP history to determine what is a WP:SOCK? I'd rather bring this up now then let it spiral into something else later on. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPI will not look at IP addresses, though WP:DUCK applies. Giant Snowman 18:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I'll just continue to monitor then. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

PFC Ludogorets Razgrad

Two users have been fighting over this. Insults, notice board posts, everything but talking it out-- irreconcilable differences. Could someone sort this out with reliable sources and calm discussion? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I cite the following sources and explain that there is a difference between incorporation date on September 18, 2010 and the date "The club was established in 1945".^[1] Additionally, there had been some discussion about the year 2000/2001. ^[2] Translating the only available source about that: "Razgrad 2000 was founded in 2000. Before the start of 2010/11 football season, the club inheritted the history, symbols, name and traditional records of the city's club Ludogorets 1945." I can further explain this source, which was written by a fellow citizen /football fan who owns this website/, because I live in Razgrad and I am able to provide more detailed information. Ludogorets was established in 1945 after the merging of several rural football clubs from the Ludogorie Region. Ludogorets Razgrad was initially participating in the Third football division of Bulgaria. They promoted to the Second division in 1961. In 1997 the club merged with FC Antibiotic Razgrad and was renamed to FC Antibiotic-Ludogorets but then the club defuncted due to financial problems. It is important to note that the club was not registered as a private company. Meanwhile the citizens of our small town, lead by Alexandar Alexandrov who later became the director of the club, created a youth club named Razgrad 2000. In 2009/2010 the club was purchased by a Bulgarian pharmeceutical entrepreneur - Kiril Domuschiev who incorporated the club by merging all previous Ludogorets' and Razgrad 2000' properties, stadium, team management, players, coaches, symbols and making it a private company. This club is the original successor of the traditions and history of Ludogorets 1945 and right now a Professional Football Club. I know it is hard to understand this for people who haven't lived in a communist country. The real thing is that before 1987 Bulgaria's government owned everything. There weren't any private companies. This means that even if the club was later privately, it was actually established long time ago. It is a common situation here and the same happened with other football clubs. Most recently with CSKA Sofia, which merged with Litex in 2016 but kept the history of the club in 1948.

Other sources: ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] All sources you could find state that the club was founded in 1945. Even yesterday, they had their 75th Anniversary celebration in front of all the Bulgarian football community. Seimbru (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see @GodCipherDivine: has not responded here after being advised to discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The club was founded on 18. June 2001. Cheers Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "Ludogorets AD, Private Company Register".
^ "BG Clubs".
^ "Sportal, Bulgarian Sport Website".
^ "Soccerway".
^ "Transfermarket".
^ "Sofascore".
^ "UEFA Clubs".

Atlanta United 2

I wanted to double check, do Atlanta 2 players pass NFooty? Govvy (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:FPL, they do play in a fully professional league so I would say yes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

k, I saw the league they were playing in, but wasn't sure at first, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Season articles

Hi. Sakiv keeps creating articles for the 2019–20 season, such as 2020–21 Leeds United F.C. season even though the current season hasn't finished yet (so probably a WP:TOOSOON violation since I don't know what the article can actually achieve at the moment). On these articles they add squad lists (with loan players for the 2019–20 season) copied and pasted from club articles without properly attributing, and keeps linking to leagues even though the current season hasn't finished yet. So, a) am I right to remove the inaccurate squad lists etc. and b) I'm concious of edit warring so can anyone help me out here. Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: How are you calling them violations of WP:TOOSOON when a great number of other leagues' season articles have been created. See Ajax, Fenerbahce, Slavia Prague, Monaco and many more. Why are you focusing on me only?? If you don't have enough experience in Wikipedia that is not my fault. We usually create them a few weeks before the previous season have finished.--Sakiv (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sakiv: You're threatening me with blocks now. Charming. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out his addition of "Overview" sections. Didn't we decide not to include these in season articles a while back? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Again... Why are you focusing on me only??--Sakiv (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Because you keep reverting my edits and adding inaccurate content. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with this kind of articles.--Sakiv (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mediocre Legacy, Nehme1499, and Flix11: Hello, this editor is claiming that the season articles I created are a violation of TOOSOON, but there is no particular timeframe for when these articles should be created.--Sakiv (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Only when the previous season hasn't finished yet. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Besides, my main issue is the squad lists that are wrong and appear to be copied and pasted from the club's article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I should really post everything in one go but I don't so sorry. Also, Sakiv, do be aware of WP:CIVIL. If we create these articles before the previous season has ended, what do these articles actually achieve. Take 2020–21 West Ham United F.C. season as an example. All it has so far is one sentence since nothing else can be said about it. Should we create 2021–22 West Ham United F.C. season, 2022–23 West Ham United F.C. season and 2023–24 West Ham United F.C. season now since you could have as much coverage of those as you do for 2020–21 West Ham United F.C. season. Also, I'll probably take a small wikibreak because I'm kinda fed up of this so don't expect me to respond promptly, though I will probably still have a look at whats going on here inevitably. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this, as I don't create or deal with clubs' season articles. I can see both points of view, though. Maybe (temporarily) moving it to draft for now seems to be a good idea. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We are already in July. The season will start after the last season is finished in 10-14 days. We usually start creating these articles a few weeks before. I will take care of them and add more info.--Sakiv (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

But we don't know when the season will start. For all we know there may not be a 2020–21 season at all. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

According to 2020–21 Premier League, it will start on 12 September, but the clubs usually play a lot of friendlies once the current season is finished and many players arrive and depart. This is all helpful information for readers.--Sakiv (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering Leeds don't even know what league they'll be in, it does seem WP:TOOSOON- the other teams mentioned at least know what league they will be playing in for the 2020-21 season. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

1993 Football League First Division play-off Final

I have been working on a sports table for 1993 Football League First Division play-off Final. I believe I have something that is close to the desired result, but there are two issues. the non-sports table version is here vs. the sports table version here. The discussion has been with The Rambling Man who has requested that (1) all the numbers in the position column be left-aligned instead of centred and (2) that all the other numbers are right-aligned and (3) that there is a gap between the + and the 7 to align the numbers in the GD column. before I enable either of these features, I thought it would be a good idea to get more input. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The second version looks better for me. More clear. Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Same, I also prefer the second one. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. In a small table like that, it's much easier to read the numbers centred than aligned, and the position column being left aligned looks very odd. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I don't really care which "looks better" but I do need to ensure all the readability elements are there, and that the facts that are being "transcluded" via the module are correct (I've found some issues with league tables across Wikipedia, mine are correct). I didn't ask for left-alignment, I asked for "numerical" alignment which means the units align with the units, the tens with the tens etc. I'm not sure where the idea of "left" alignment came from, a misunderstanding I suppose. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

when I look at this version on my browser, the numbers in the position column are left-aligned, and the other numbers are right-aligned with a gap between the + and the 7. seems like there is a problem with consistency of the display across browsers for the hand-crafted version. also the width of the table varies wildly depending on the width of the browser window (seems to be fixed at 30%, which would be bad on mobile, although easily fixed by removing the width=30%). Frietjes (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Incidentally, a glance at the BBC shows they "right-align" all numerical fields (what I called "numerical alignment"), and when a negative symbol is used, it's next to the number with no space. Sky centrally align everything. As do The Daily Telegraph. The Guardian left aligns stuff. ESPN right align everything (but position which is left aligned), and 11v11 left align the lot. Looks like this is boiling down to pure personal preference, so unless we mandate a MOS-style approach to this, I would assume it shouldn't be mandated by a couple of editors how this table should look. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mbachu John Ndubuisi

I am confused by this bio, it's also like it's fake news, I can find any stats for Hapoel Acre, almost like he was never there. Someone else want to have a look? Govvy (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly a hoax, definitely non-notable. Giant Snowman 17:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

okay, I decided to speedy it under a hoax. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

there are enough sources that look reasonable enough that it is not a blatant hoax so I swapped the csd for an afd. Spike 'em (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a hoax either - found some Hebrew sources about him:

Profile for 2014/15 season when he played for Beitar Nes Tubruk in the youth league 1 goal in 7 games in all comps.
Sheva7 article saying that Hapoel Be'er Sheva issued visas for him and another Nigerian players so they can trial for them at the age of 18 (in 2014).

--SuperJew (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I need to use a better Hebrew search engine, it is hard to run translation searches know. Govvy (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

List of association football films

I just came across this article, I think it's quite a good idea, maybe we can add a link somewhere on the project page to it? Govvy (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Echetus Xe 23:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Because I thought it could be a good reference list of footy films and thought we could put a link on WP:FOOTBALL front page! :/ Govvy (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Champions League and Europa League participants tables

Moving/continuing discussion from Talk:2020–21_UEFA_Champions_League#Participants_table. Who else thinks that previously used formatting of these tables should be kept for the new season as well? --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I do. And most of the readres for sure. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I do too. The 2017–18 table is easier to read imo. WDM10 (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the old version then the new version as it's easier to read compared to the newest version that is on the 2020-21 pages. HawkAussie (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not that much harder to read. Probably just unsual. But is actually the ordering I'd expect in a table. But anyway I asked myself here Talk:2020–21 UEFA Women's Champions League, if a simple lsit wouldn't be better than a table at all. Looks better on mobile, probably still easier for a screenreader, and it would actually have the ordering of the old tables (same nation's teams below each other). . -Koppapa (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

DBU template

Hi folks. A template for player profiles at the Danish Football Union exists at a couple of non-English Wikipedias such as Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:DBU), German, and French. Any reason we shouldn't have the template? If not, would someone be willing to set it up? :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Done, see {{DBU player}}. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

David Marshall (footballer)

Could someone do me a favour and fix David Marshall’s career statistics total box, because I was adding his 2019/20 season statistics and It seemed to glitch the total stats box. AngusMacintosh (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Done by @ChrisTheDude:. Giant Snowman 10:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the line break issue, but you may want to check what you added for 2019-20 as there's columns missing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks AngusMacintosh (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

GKS Glinik Gorlice

This one currently at Afd, I am curious why some people are treating a Polish non-league club different from an English non-league club? There are plenty of under-sourced English non-league club articles. Other than simple GNG, I am a little confused, I've tried to find sources, but I don't know what to do with stuff I find cuz of the language barrier. Do we not have a Polish editor around to help the article? Govvy (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Because there is strong systemic bias against eastern topics. Haven't you figured that out by now? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nick Pope (footballer)

We can't amend subjects' heights based on a source which quotes the player stating their height, right, with WP:PRIMARY in mind? That's what is happening at Nick Pope (footballer), if anyone wants to take a look. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to use the Premier League and Burnley figures (1.91 m), however the image linked by @Undergroundmall does show him being taller than Tyrone Mings (1.96 m) and Harry Maguire (1.94 m). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hard to judge by images --SuperJew (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We definitely should not be using images to guess the height - just reliable sources. Giant Snowman 18:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This has a quote from the player himself stating that he is 6'6" tall (I think this is what Matty was referring to in his opening comment of this section). I know most people probably don't know their own exact height, but it would be odd for him to claim in print to be a full three inches taller than he actually is.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

since one guy tagged me, i give you 3 more images with better angle nad resolution to see it for yourself @Nehme1499 @SuperJew @GiantSnowman @ChrisTheDude

https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/kosovo-v-england-uefa-euro-2020-qualifying-group-a-football-fadil-vokrri-stadium-pristina-kosovo-17-nov-2019--10475023cb

https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-1500/10477488w/48da8551/kosovo-v-england-uefa-european-2020-qualifier-shutterstock-editorial-10477488w.jpg

This one is him with Jurgen Klopp, who claimed to be 1,91 m

https://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.uk/webimg/QVNIMTE2MjI0ODI4.jpg?width=640

Hereby, i would like to call out @Mattythewhite on his removal of my edit. There's a chance he also did it through an ip repeatedly. Really disgusting behaviour coming from an admin/mod, if true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.150.243.45— Preceding unsigned comment added by Undergroundmall (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Hereby" "disgusting" "if true". Yeah, someone has a terrible case of unwarranted self importance. The height of Nick Pope should be amended when there is a reliable source. It would not be the first time players have their heights indicated incorrectly and it is doing no functional harm to his bio. Koncorde (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And, again, we do NOT guesstimate people's heights based on photos! Giant Snowman 11:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sometime club official website can be wrong, take an example: Harry Maguire profile at Hull City in May, 2017; few months before his transfer to Leicester City

https://web.archive.org/web/20170515073405/http://www.hullcitytigers.com/team/player-profile/harry-maguire/5 Here he's listed at 188 cm And here's his bio at Leicester:

https://www.lcfc.com/players/9566/Harry-Maguire/profile Leicester listed him at 194cm So while club official site should be considered as primary source in most case, they aren't always right.

For Pope, a quote from this article stated he's 6 ft 6:

https://www.clitheroeadvertiser.co.uk/sport/football/burnley-keeper-nick-pope-becoming-student-game-2881170

There's no guessing from me here. And all images above proved he's clearly taller than 6 ft 3. So for me, sticking to a source only because it's "official" is too rigid@GiantSnowman— Preceding unsigned comment added by Undergroundmall (talk • contribs) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You may think it's too rigid, but it is Wikipedia policy. You can't verify Pope's height as anything other than that which is cited in the official sources without relying on a primary source, which is against Wikipedia policy. It may not be right in your opinion, but that's too bad. – Pee Jay 13:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Undergroundmall: has restored their change. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted them and issued a final warning. If they do it again, let me know and they'll be blocked. Number 5 7 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, Undergroundmall has provided what looks like a reliable source for his/her change, so why should he/she be blocked.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring. One source from a local paper saying 6'6 is not the same as Burnley and the FA saying 6'3. The 6'6 is the only one I have found saying that, and it could well be a typo (3 is next to 6 on the square number but of keyboards). Giant Snowman 20:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Here is a second source in which Pope contends that he is 6'6" (and it's clearly not a typo). It seems like at least we should mention somewhere in the article that he gives his own height as 6'6", even if his official club profile says otherwise......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok that looks a good source. Giant Snowman 20:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have left the 6'3" height in the infobox but added a sourced footnote that the players contends that he is quite a bit taller than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Timo Werner

Hi guys, could you please review the edits made by MG000000000 (talk · contribs) on Timo Werner, I don't want to 3RR. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this article enough for GNG?

Would this article be enough for the player to pass GNG? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

GNG requires multiple sources, so no single source would ever be enough. Spike 'em (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, WP:3REFS. Giant Snowman 18:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That particular source seems to be someone's blog, which wouldn't normally be considered WP:RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks guys. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

result:
Procedural close. This is a questionable venue for these move requests. There is no prejudice if at any time any or all of these articles are requested to be renamed on the appropriate talk page(s). (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 04:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

– Publishing this here due to the number of pages involved. "Stadion Miejski" is not a name per se, it just means "Municipal Stadium"; therefore it is a bizarre title to have such a name on English Wikipedia. Secondly, there are huge inconsistencies between the page names and the names of the articles, despite all of them having similar official names. The name of the club that currently resides is an indication as to identification, however it is just an unofficial name, no different to calling "Stamford Bridge" "The Chelsea Stadium" for example. Therefore I propose the following page moves, with the redirects in tact as they are unofficial or frequently used names. The only exceptions to a blanket move to "Municipal Stadium" are: 1. Wisła stadium which is named after a person; 2. & 3. Wrocław and Kielce stadiums have an official name; 4. Gdynia has had 2 stadiums of the same name, the other being Municipal Stadium (Gdynia, 1938–2009) 5. In Łódź there are 2 stadiums called "Municipal Stadium", therefore in official documentation the name of the street is used between the two. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Procedural oppose - firstly the talk page of a WikiProject is not the correct venue for this discussion, it should be on article talk pages (because otherwise this will get lost in the Archive), and secondly this mass bundling is entirely inappropriate. I suggest this is closed and then, one-by-one, over time, each individual page is re-nominated on its respective talk page. Giant Snowman 11:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose can't just bundle all these articles together, and no rationale given for any of the new names. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with the previous opposition. Each subject needs to be looked at individually and the WP:COMMONNAME used in English-language publications should be used to refer to the names of the facilities. That should also be the case with clubs, players and staff. Too often we have deferred to using diacritics in spellings ignoring the most common names. For instance, most English-language sources for Franck Ribery list his family name without the accent, but our article is at Franck Ribéry. Not sure why we ignore COMMONNAME so often. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Club names in titles of articles on individual games

This bulk move request highlights that we are inconsistent on whether a club's name, when it appears in the title of an article about a specific game, should include the "F.C." or not. Putting aside the other aspects of what is being determined there, do we think the "F.C." should be included or excluded.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that, for consistency with the main article's name, we should keep the various F.C.'s. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that the full club article name (ie including the F.C./FC) should be used. Giant Snowman 11:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How to name articles for teams with same name in different countries?

I tried to look this up on WP:FOOTY but I couldn't find it. The best I found was the club template article and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) which I didn't find the answer either.

My question is in regards to these two clubs named Aurora FC. One is from Guatemala, the other from Canada, which I recently created. I put the League in brackets, but I think this is probably not the best way. Both teams compete in their own country's respective second tier, although the Guatemalan team has much more of a history. So, I'm also wondering if the Guatemalan team article should be renamed and a disambiguation page created or if it would qualify as WP:PRIMARYNAME.

Aurora F.C. is the Guatemalan team.
Aurora FC (League1 Ontario) is the Canadian team.

Thanks for any insight. RedPatchBoys (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

They have slightly different names - you could use the full name of the teams. Otherwise, using a country, provincial or city name as a disambiguator would probably work - though in this case, the Guatamalan team appears to be the primary topic here. Hack (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. Aurora FC without periods is currently a re-direct to the Guatemalan team, so I decided to leave it so player articles already created wouldn't be affected. Or did you mean Aurora Futbol Club and Aurora Football Club? Would Aurora FC (Canada) be best in your view? RedPatchBoys (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say simply using "Canada" would be best, because it would remove the possibility of having to move the article if the teams moves to a different league/the league changes its name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would disambiguate by country (or city where there might be multiple teams from same country with same name, such as in Arab world) rather than league. Giant Snowman 10:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I also prefer to disambiguate by geography rather than by league. In particular I like Aurora FC (Canada) over Aurora FC (Ontario) or Aurora FC (Aurora, Ontario). BLAIXX 14:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that their full names are different, what about Aurora Fútbol Club and Aurora Football Club? Otherwise, Aurora F.C. and Aurora FC (Canada) seem fine. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest having them at Aurora F.C. (Guatemala) and Aurora FC (Canada), with Aurora F.C. or Aurora FC as disambig and redirected to the disambig as appropriate. Giant Snowman 16:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I set up a page move discussion on the Talk page, linked to WP:FOOTY page moves at Talk:Aurora_FC_(League1_Ontario)#Requested_move_13_July_2020 RedPatchBoys (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

See C.D. Guadalajara and CD Guadalajara (Spain). Asturkian (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Álvaro Odriozola

Hey, does he get the honour for the 2019–20 La Liga. He started the season with Real, made four league appearances and then left in January. Kicker does say that he can win five titles, with Bayern and Real together. What is the case here? Can it be added, is there any rule how many times a players must have played? Any answer is appreciated. Kante4 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Various other websites (El Ambito, TUDN, for example) are also reporting that Odriozola won two league titles (La Liga and Bundesliga). I don't know what La Liga considers the minimum required apps to be able to be crowned league winner; in the Premier League, for example, it's five. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is not any minimum number for these things. Asturkian (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources say he has the honour, then we do. If they don't then neither do we. Giant Snowman 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So, from the sources we have we do what? Kante4 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Also wanted to add BBC Match of the Day's official Facebook page to the list. I would say that we should add the La Liga honour. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. -18:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ATK Mohun Bagan FC → Mohun Bagan: How to request an admin closure?

Hey, so the discussion on a potential merger of ATK Mohun Bagan FC into Mohun Bagan has pretty much ran its course. The whole thread is a mess but generally, enough has been brought up to make a consensus. Is there anyway I can request a closure because if we are closing and it is say, merging, then there is a lot that needs to be done with redirects and page/category moves. Also, could someone keep an eye on the above pages. A lot of random IP users who are more than happy to pull the trigger before the discussion has formally closed (apparently making me Dr. Evil). Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Creating a template

How do you create a template? For instance, a sports table template, in which you don't need to edit the sports league table after every match Josedimaria237 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: Can you give us a practical example of where you would use this table? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nehme₁₄₉₉ No, I just want to know how it's being created, for future use. Josedimaria237 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Josedimaria237: I'm still confused. Why would you want to create a new template? Is there something you need that the current templates can't do? If so, what? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If you mean is there a way to automatically update league tables without having to manually change the numbers in the article, then no I don't think there is.Boothy m (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mexican team moves

Whilst working on Special:WantedCategories I came across what I think is a mixup. AIUI Monarcas Morelia has moved to Mazatlán and been renamed Mazatlán F.C. Meanwhile Atlético Zacatepec moved to Morelia and was reincarnated as Atlético Morelia, although there seems to be something going on with Coras de Tepic along the way. However, it looks like on Wikipedia :

Monarcas Morelia was moved to Atlético Morelia on 28 June (but without the Category:Monarcas Morelia hierarchy moving to match)
Mazatlán F.C. was created on 9 June
Atlético Zacatepec is where it was

I know nothing about Mexican football nor WPF conventions, but I assume Monarcas Morelia should have renamed to Mazatlán F.C. and Atlético Zacatepec should have renamed to Atlético Morelia? And based on the articles I remain thoroughly confused what's going on with Coras de Tepic. Could someone who knows more than me take a look? Cheers Le Deluge (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I know @GoPurpleNGold24: is active in Mexican football... Giant Snowman 12:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems GoPurpleNGold24 was the one who made the moves, I was just questioning the assumption that the new Atlético Morelia was the inheritor of the Monarcas legacy. I understand why they would claim that legacy for commercial reasons, but I'm not sure that it is consistent for Wikipedia to do the same as normally articles follow the "franchise"/business wherever they go geographically, rather than sticking with the geography regardless (although I understand football is more naturally "geographical" rather than franchise based). Perhaps the best thing to do given the confusion is just to keep the articles completely separate and treat all of them as completely separate entities other than a note to say that team X played in Morelia before/after this one? Either way, the categories need sorting out, there's some WP:REDNOT ones and others needing re-parenting. Le Deluge (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

1963 in Australian soccer

Are these earlier yearly articles for Aussy footy viable? Govvy (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think they would be. They just need additional information such as results from the Australia national soccer team and maybe some other information. Also, technically these should go to the 1920's as that is when the national team started to play. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If it covered the major state leagues and national team, there would be plenty of content to add to the article/s. It would also be a lot of work given a lot of the contemporary coverage is paywalled or hard to access. Hack (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I was sure if articles needed to be combined earlier, but hopefully they can be expanded with useful content. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Shirsh Bihar United Football Club

I am a little confused, has this team actually played any league football? Govvy (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

State league at most. It has not participated in the Indian Super League, I-League, I-League 2nd Division or national cup tournaments like the Federation Cup and Super Cup. I've PROD'd the article. The user who created has been making a few club pages for state clubs and probably doesn't know the notability criteria. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

User creating lots of season articles for leagues that probably don't meet WP:NFOOTY, WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG

So I came across Skyblueshaun when he created season articles for Mainland Premier, FootballSouth, Central League and NRFL Premier. All local leagues in New Zealand that I knew wouldn't really be notable, all the teams are amatuer and the leagues doesn't lead to promotions. After they were deleted by PROD, which Skyblueshaun didn't take part in, he decided to create a new article, combining all the leagues into one. After discussing with him on the talk page it was clear he didn't see the difference in levels for leagues in different countries, so I decided to PROD this one as well. Then I decided to have a look at what else he works on and came across some articles like these that to me would appear to also not meet season requirements for articles. 2020 1. deild karla - 2nd Tier Iceland, 2020 Swedish Football Division 2, 2020 NorZone Premier League - state-level soccer in the Northern Territory of Australia and 2020 Spring UPSL season - 5th tier USA. I'm sure there is more but that these were the ones I found with a quick look, another issue is nearly all of these only use Soccerway to reference them and rely on the user to keep them updated. Now I don't doubt that Skyblueshaun does a lot of good work and appears to be very busy, it just appears some of the stuff he is working on isn't relevant. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@NZFC: I have had a look at those pages and the Iceland page and Sweden page look like they are relevant especially considering their are other pages about for that period. Mainly as if we do get rid of that page, then the rest of them would be up for the taking. HawkAussie (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well the 1. deild karla and Division 2 (Swedish football) aren't fully professional, so we don't need any seasons article unless they explicitly meet WP:GNG. Same as how we deleted English National League seasons articles before. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of season articles for leagues that aren't fully professional, such as 2016–17 South West Peninsula League or 2014–15 Oberliga Rheinland-Pfalz/Saar. WP:NSEASONS only applies to club seasons as far as I'm concerned. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does, and the examples I was thinking of were club seasons too. Struck my incorrect comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Thanks for your message, but I am interested in what makes them relevant or how they meet WP:GNG apart from the fact that they have other seasons as well? Just because WP:OTHER doesn't make something notable, it just may mean that no one has question those articles either (Not that I'm really advocating for everything to be deleted). The other issue is the references in these articles is either Soccerway or the leagues own website, there are no other references like newspaper/website articles. Also I don't have an answer for leagues like 2020 NorZone Premier League and [[2020 Spring UPSL season which I assume are not notable either, showing there is a bit of a difference in what users think are relevant for leagues to have season articles to be created for. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 19:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

How to record delayed competitions

Apologies if this has been raised already. Just seeking to confirm how the 'leftover' 2019-20 competitions should be recorded in player stats tables and other relevant areas? Specifically the Champions League, Europa League, Scottish Cup, Spanish Cup Final and no doubt others I don't know about. Are they to be added to the 19-20 column with a note stating e.g 'completed in September 2020' (that could be problematic for players who moved club over the summer and are allowed to play for their new team, you may have to add other rows just to record them), or in 20-21 with a note e.g 'X appearances from the 2019-20 Champions league'? It would be good to have something here to refer people to if they start adding them in one way when the other way has been agreed upon - again, sorry if that guidance already exists. Crowsus (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the 2019-20 domestic cup could be included in anything other than the 2019-20 season row. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If it's the 2019-20 competition, it should go in the 2019-20 row -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. The year was just extended. Given its 2019-2020 not "July 1 2019 - June 30 2020". I feel like its generally assumed that everything is still part of 2019-20. The 2020-2021 year is just delayed but still separate. For the most part, these 29-20 events aren't happening after the 2020-2021 year has officially started. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

OK i don't disagree with any of that, but there are going to be a few anomalies, for example Jonny Hayes played for Celtic in 19-20 and will play for Aberdeen in 20-21, those two teams have a Scottish Cup semi final to play and I'd be surprised if he doesn't play in it (the rules say he can), so we will need to create a 19-20 row for just that match. Scott McKenna might end up moving the other way. It's not a big deal to display and obviously it would only be an issue for this year (we all hope!) but just a small thing that's likely to be a factor. Crowsus (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would personally add another 2019-20 row for Aberdeen below the 2019-20 Celtic row and above the 2020-21 Aberdeen row. The 2019-20 Aberdeen row will have —'s across the board, except for the cup column, which will display his matches and goals. All other "2020-21" competitions games will go under the 2020-21 row for Aberdeen. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:England squad UEFA Nations League Finals 2019

We don't do squad templates for the UEFA Nations League, like the one above, do we? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Kante4 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No, only World Cup and top regional tournament. Giant Snowman 11:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

TfD started here, all project members feel free to contribute your thoughts. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me for questioning then, but if that is the consensus policy, why are there templates for the Olympic football tournament and the Confederations Cup? Neither of these fall into the categories you indicate. Hammersfan (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Olympics and Confed Cup are world tournaments similar to WC (though not as prominent). They are not the minor regional tournaments. Giant Snowman 10:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the Confederations Cup is to the World Cup what the UEFA Nations League is to the UEFA Euros... Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, you've said "only World Cup and top regional tournament" - neither the Confederations Cup nor the Olympic tournament fall into that category. Hammersfan (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me rephrase if you're going to be difficult - only world tournaments (World Cup, Olympics, Confed Cup) and top regional tournaments. Giant Snowman 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, the roster changes for every Nations League match, whereas WorldCup/Euro/Confederations/etc it is the same roster throughout the tournament. For example, Cristiano Ronaldo was on the Portugal roster that won the Nations Cup final, but he was on the roster in the SF and F, but not in any of the group stage matches. So a template isn't appropriate for NL given the inconsistent rosters RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the 23 man squad for the finals tournament, as it clearly states in the header. Also, I don't appreciate being called "difficult", when I'm trying to point out the flaw in the argument. The UEFA Nations League is played as a major tournament, with a major trophy, which has, just like all of the others, a finals tournament. My argument is that it should be classed as such, especially if other so called "lesser" tournaments, such as the Confederations Cup and the Olympic tournament are included in the same way as the World Cup and the other continental championships. Hammersfan (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Nations League is not the top continental tournament of Europe, the navboxes are not needed for a secondary tournament played over a few days. This was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 124#National team squad navigational boxes for UEFA Nations League Finals? and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9#Template:Netherlands squad 2019 UEFA Nations League Finals. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Brazilian youth leagues and clubs

I've seen there is no guide on how to proceed when talking about the U-20, U-17 and U-15 teams of professional Brazilian clubs. There is an article about Copa São Paulo de Futebol Júnior, which is a traditional U-20 competition held every January, but not for other competitions or for any of the teams. Should the youth teams have their own articles like English teams like Everton F.C. Reserves and Academy, or do they deserve just a section in the senior club's article? Horcoff (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Locations

It's well known that teams' home stadiums often aren't located in the place indicated by the name of the team (e.g. Manchester United's stadium isn't in Manchester, it's in Stretford; Chelsea's stadium isn't in Chelsea, it's in the borough of Hammersmith & Fulham; etc.) We often overlook this for ease of communication, but this is an encyclopaedia where factual accuracy is paramount. At 1994 FIFA World Cup, a concerted effort has been made to reflect the actual locations of the nine venues, five of which were not within the limits of the cities they were marketed as. Even in the 2019–20 Premier League article, teams' locations are listed, with varying degrees of accuracy, according to where their home stadium actually is, not where we might think it should be. But which approach is correct? Coming back to Manchester United, although Old Trafford is in the Stretford district of the Trafford metropolitan borough, the club lists its location as "Sir Matt Busby Way, Old Trafford, Manchester, M16 0RA", as does the Premier League's website, and UEFA also talks about Old Trafford being in Manchester. Bolton Wanderers' stadium is in Horwich, but they give their address as "Burnden Way, Bolton, BL6 6JW", no mention of Horwich. Do we need to specify that Everton are based in Walton and Liverpool in Anfield, or that Arsenal, Chelsea, Crystal Palace, Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United are in Holloway, Fulham, Selhurst, Tottenham and Stratford respectively? – Pee Jay 15:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, in simple listings I would go with Stretford, Horwich, Liverpool and London for the examples given – the name of the settlement the stadium is located in, not a neighbourhood/district of a larger one. Any further detail can be dealt with in prose.

On a related note, what do people think about adding back the town/city to club infoboxes. Someone (I think possibly an IP) went through and removed them from hundreds of clubs in major leagues several years ago, and it seems to have stuck (I tried to restore a few and seem to recall being reverted by an editor who was not a regular here). I don't think it's particularly useful to just state the stadium name, particularly in cases where grounds are not in the place as the club's name suggests. Cheers, Number 5 7 16:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would probably agree with Liverpool, but if we're going to say London for the clubs in Greater London, why go to a higher level of specificity for the clubs in Greater Manchester. How about using the metropolitan boroughs (Trafford and Bolton) for the GM clubs and the London boroughs (Islington, Hammersmith & Fulham, Croydon, Haringey and Newham) for the GL clubs? At least then we're being consistent regarding boroughs. – Pee Jay 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the boroughs of Greater Manchester (which are standalone towns/cities in their own right) and London boroughs, which are simply districts of London (hence why London boroughs/Greater London is not governed in the same way as the metropolitan boroughs of Manchester (or other largely urban counties like Tyne & Wear or Merseyside). Number 5 7 22:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

FAC reviews need help!!

Hello good people, I come, cap in hand, begging for some reviewers! Currently I have both 1998 Football League First Division play-off Final and Iwan Roberts (with Dweller) at FAC, both in need of some attention. Naturally any reviews would be amply rewarded with cool stuff like QPQ reviews, barnstars and funny jokes. Cheers all, The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these in the next couple days. I'll be posting up some FACs in the next couple days if you don't mind a QPQ. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

If I can sneak onto the bandwagon as well and put Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. in the mix. That's at FAC too as well, if anyone has the time to take a look. Kosack (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I've also put a football-related article up at FAC: Burnley F.C.. I really appreciate any feedback/comments. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to these earlier. Kinda forgot. Hopefully this weekend. I now have my two unrelated FACs up if you fancy a QPQ. will commit to memory to pick these upBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Runners up honours

Hi I have noticed that people have been adding Runners up to player articles such as Jordan Henderson. Is there a consensus to have those? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe there is a consensus, but in my opinion it's wrong. Second place didn't actually win anything, so it doesn't make sense to list it. – Pee Jay 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a longstanding bone of contention on here. I personally am very much of the same view as PeeJay. Number 5 7 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus previously on player bio's is not to list runner-ups for leagues, only the the runner up for cups, last I knew. Govvy (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Govvy - runner up in a Cup is fine, but not league. Giant Snowman 13:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. Unless I missed something, you don't get any sort of recognition (medal, etc) for finishing second in the league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok I will remove the league runners up and leave the cup ones. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Also agree with removing second place in the league from honours section.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @Govvy: If this brief discussion between several people is what amounts to a consensus, I have to ask the obvious question of why you are not going about correcting the vast majority of player and manager articles that do not include runners-up? Nowhere within WikiProject Football/Players section does the style guide refer to or recommend using runners-up. Can somebody please explain to me why it is that only a few pages are seemingly being held to a standard that others are not? Vaze50 (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There are thousands of player articles on wikipedia, there are over two thousand articles that have runner-ups on!! Govvy (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: And there are thousands more (both players and managers) that do not! I don't think it is an entirely unreasonable request to ask for some consistency on this, surely? Although I personally think runners-up are unnecessary to include within an honours list, I am more than happy to accept them if the majority of people feel otherwise, but what I think is perfectly reasonable to not accept are inconsistencies right across the place, especially when the majority of pages do not have runners-up included within them. Given you are all more seasoned editors than me as you don't hesitate to point out, can I ask what the most effective way of ensuring that all pages are consistent (which is surely the point here)? Vaze50 (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I fear it's you that is being inconsistent, you reverted Mattythewhite who is an admin, then you reverted me. You seem to be setting your own rules, you broke WP:3RR and then some! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

[I would argue that reverting people for the same thing is a perfect example of consistency! (That was a joke to be clear, trying to defuse it a bit...) I have now reversed that as a show of good faith given this conversation is now taking place here. To be clear, I am not in favour of "setting my own rules" - if there is a clear and well-defined consensus, I am happy to follow it, but:

1) It does not appear to me there is a well-defined consensus. On this chat alone Number, PeeJay2K3 and myself do not agree with including runners-up, Govvy, GiantSnowman and ChrisTheDude do agree (REDMAN 2019 did not express a view, so given 3 are for and 3 against, that seems an odd definition of consensus to me I must say. 2) If there IS a well-defined consensus (and I would be grateful if you could provide clearer evidence than just this chat that there is!) all I would ask is that such a consensus be applied consistently, across all articles. What could possibly be wrong with this approach? I do not understand why it is outrageous to not include runners-up on some pages, while the majority of pages do not include them! 3) I would refer you to WP:COOL, I do not want this conversation to be personal. I am not saying you specifically are being inconsistent, I am saying that this policy is clearly being applied inconsistently across the board, that is all - I think this is something that should be corrected. Vaze50 (talk) 10:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: On a further note, I can see that you participated in the discussion on WikiProject Football/Players discussion on whether runners-up should be included, closed in March 2020. EchetusXe noted in that discussion that the discussion resulted in 5 people saying runner-ups should stay, and 5 (including Govvy saying they should not. Given that is 5 against 5, how can that possibly be described as a consensus either? Very grateful if you could address that point please. Vaze50 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't see why there needs to be a consensus on this. The honours sections are to give insight into what success the club or player have had. What is appropriate for Messi and Barcelona is not the same as that for Joe Bloggs or Woking Athletic. For Messi adding all the runners up items dilutes the list and makes it harder to see his success. For Joe Bloggs the runners-up medal in the Eastern League South was the highlight of his career. It makes no sense to treat articles on such very different players the same way. Common sense and context should be applied. — Jts1882 | talk 10:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thank you for that comment, I completely agree that applying a reasonable degree of common sense is perfectly sensible here. I would suggest that adding runners-up medals to the articles of players such as Jordan Henderson who have multiple honours similarly dilutes the list (I accept he is not quite in the same bracket as Messi when it comes to that mind you!), and that therefore it is entirely reasonable to suggest removing runners-up honours. Perhaps a more reasonable compromise might be to include runners-up in the *absence* of any further honours? To insist on including a runners-up medal from the FA Cup (for example) when the player has won it previously or subsequently seems to me rather unreasonable.

In any case though, I am happy that you confirm no consensus exists here, and therefore I would be grateful if users stopped saying that a consensus exists here. Clearly it does not! Given the lack of consensus, and the application of reasonable common sense, I believe it is perfectly fine to remove diluting runners-up medals from the pages of players and managers where multiple honours/wins already exist. Vaze50 (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with runners up for competitions like the FA Cup, Copa del Rey, DFB Pokal and other major domestic trophy's. Possibly the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League but it isn't nessercery to have them for domestic leagues like the Premier league. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said - include runner up honours for cups, but not for leagues. Giant Snowman 15:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I will agree with GiantSnowman on this. Sourced cup final appearances should be included, but second placed in a league should not (unless it is a promotion, as in the promotion is the honour not the fact they finished second). There isn't a consensus but this is the best we can do, if the honours are sourced then editors should not be creating their own consensus by removing sourced facts.--Echetus Xe 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose if we are to list cup matches with runners-up and not leagues, where do we stand with play-off matches, or leagues that turn into cups? Is the distinction having a final? The difference from say the EFL playoff and the champions League isn't that derivative. Both feature a league style round-robin and both have a final, but from the above, are we suggesting that the champions League could be designated a cup, but not the play-off? The same would also be true of world cups, and specifically the Nation's league, as that has a league promotion/relegation system but also a cup aspect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Clubs performance comparison or the Champions League etc.

There is an Aft if lists of performance comparison of club competitions are notable or not. This Afd effects following lists: UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison, AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison, Performance record of clubs in the Premier League, EuroLeague clubs performance comparison, Copa Sudamericana clubs performance comparison, Euro Hockey League clubs performance comparison and similar lists. Malo95 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe it does affect them. Echetus Xe 09:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I see issues with MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS, WP:NOSTATS, issues with WP:GNG is pretty evident by lack of citations. As I've said on the AfD, 52 sources all from one website doesn't pass GNG. Also this feels like WP:FORUMSHOP straight from the AfD, I am probably guilty of this last one now! Govvy (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I also think they aren't really useful. -Koppapa (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I can think of plenty of uses for these tables. As someone who works in football stats, the Champions League and Europe League performance comparison tables have been invaluable for me over the past few years. – Pee Jay 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Too much color, too much data. Aren't there better sites for such info, where you can apply filters etc... But ok, if some people use them its probably fine. -Koppapa (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Henderson

Can someone keep an eye on Jordan Henderson? IP's keep removing the cup runners up awards and I'm on 3RR. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO applies for vandalism. This, however, looks to be a content dispute. There is clear consensus (see earlier discussion on this very page!) that Cup runner-ups remain. Giant Snowman 11:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

And it would be helpful if you had references to support the inclusion of the honours in the first place! Giant Snowman 11:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably easier to semi-protect that page! :/ Govvy (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I have requested page protection. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I know about the consensus to include the cup runners up awards (I was involved in the discussion!). And I have pointed the IP in the direction of this page so he/she could see it. However they continued to remove them even after I warned them on their talk page so I deemed it to be vandalism and stopped at 3RR. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: They used to be referenced, but someone decided it best to remove them for some reason. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If it is the case that there is a 'consensus', can I ask why this is not universally applied to all Wikipedia articles for former players and managers? This seems an entirely reasonable request (given that the vast majority of articles do not include them...) and I'd suggest those who believe this is consensus might spend a bit of time correcting this? Vaze50 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Belarusian stadiums

Something ridiculous is happening here: [1] This is way past 3RR. I don't have an opinion on which way is correct, but it needs to stop. Summoning @Football Beetle: and @Ludost Mlačani: to discussion. --BlameRuiner (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you don't care how this story ends, I'll be brief. [2], [3], [4] — after reading all this, you will understand everything at once. I will make as many edits as necessary about the football stadiums operating in my country. I did not violate any Wikipedia rules, this is nonsense. Football Beetle (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what is/isn't in an article, as you don't own it contrary to your comments on Talk:List of football stadiums in Belarus. Telling editors not from Belarus that they shouldn't edit is ridiculous. And as the talkpage says, you were advised to make sections for active, inactive/defunct and future stadia. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

1. You cannot tell me what to do as the editor of Wikipedia.

2. On the talk page, I asked, not ordered as a general. Making requests to other editors on Wikipedia is not prohibited.

3. I do not want to create additional tables, I think one table is enough for operating sports facilities.

4. All my proposals to an editor unknown to me were rejected. I also have the right to reject yours.

5. You have not presented any arguments, except for the imposition of your personal opinion. Your personal opinion is not more valuable than mine. Football Beetle (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering you're telling other people what to do, this is massively ironic. Wikipedia works on consensus, not on people unilaterally deciding what they want. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are right that "Your personal opinion is not more valuable than mine", however, what you are currently engaging in is an WP:edit war. My input is that matches being played at a stadium is kind of irrelevant, as it should be any item that is setup for football. What's more, th article is unsourced, which is by far a more significant issue and should be fixed sooner. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As you can see it is impossible to have a normal conversation with him. Whether matches are played or not on a stadium this season is completely irrelevant. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

While you are smearing your personal opinion here, instead of specific arguments for canceling my edits. I myself will provide a link to the official website of the Belarusian Football Federation, here it is [5]. It seems that the federation does not know anything about this stadium either.

P.S. I will gladly familiarize myself with your arguments as opposed to mine. For consensus. Football Beetle (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So, the stadium is not in the ABFF database. So what. It is only logical, as this database is new and noone plays there this season. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

And further. Here are the links to the official tournaments of the Belarusian Football Federation — [6], [7], [8]. And now a question to fill in: where is the Torpedo Minsk football club? Don't worry, I'll answer myself — it doesn't exist! The fact that the table contains information about a nonexistent club, I see here is not considered nonsense.

P.S. Instead of dealing with the arguments, they attacked one editor in a crowd. Everyone writes about the Wikipedia rules, but what about the neutral approach, gentlemen? For consensus. Football Beetle (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So Torpedo doesn't have a senior team in a national league, so what. That is all irrelevant. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a new version of the table. I have nothing more to add for admins. Football Beetle (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Prod alert

In case anyone who cares misses it, the UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison and UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison articles have been PROD'd due to a similar hockey list being deleted. I'd imagine most on here want to see these kept, but to be fair they are horribly undersourced at present so any RS links (ideally maybe a different site specialising in each country to demonstrate the widespread interest in the topic?) would be a help in helping them stay? Crowsus (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

PRODs removed. I have no views on notability, as it's not somewhere I edit at all, but the PRODs are clearly wrong, it should be AFD. Giant Snowman 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Agee. I have removed the PRODs from similar articles.

I am not sure correct procedure has been followed in the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison deletion. I remit for deletion by User:Spartaz was WP:SNYTH, but I see no clear explanation in the discussion that this has been justified. In addition I provided a response challenging the premise for deletion which was not addressed.

I am more than willing to provide a defence of these pages to any challenges for them to be deleted, but I think the challenges need to be backed up by clear examplesJopal22 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Malo95 has added an AfD to each of these articles. Note, the articles being flagged for deletion are not just football, but basketball and hockey etc as well. As the whole principle of having performance tables is being challenged this also spills into Tennis and Golf. User:Malo95 please advise how this discussion should be had so there is not disjointed similar discussions occurring on different articles, and so all stakeholders are involved. Jopal22 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I did the AfD's because it looks like if this tables are not welcomed. But we could start again a general discussion, I would suggest at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sport --Malo95 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I await a clear rationale for the issue to be set out, and then I will respond. Jopal22 (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"but to be fair they are horribly undersourced at present" is there a requirement for these types of articles to be sourced, given they are basically just using the information that is in the fully sourced UCL/UEL articles? Boothy m (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even if the same sources are simply replicated. Giant Snowman 18:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Andy Davies (referee)

This article claims he is the only football league referee to have previously been a professional footballer but I can't find him on Hugman's, worldfootball.net, Soccer Base or 11v11. Given that it claims he played for Portsmouth who have been professional for their whole history, I would expect coverage of some sort on Hugman's. This claim appeared long before the Wikipedia article, with the first mention of the claim I could find in the Reading Post from 2010 (see here) so it can't be a case of citogenesis but unless I'm mistaken, it is false. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

His profile on the EFL website says "A former player with a number of clubs at youth level", so presumably he never made it higher than that, and the claim that he is the only EFL referee to have previously been a professional footballer would be more accurately worded as "is the only EFL referee to have previously been a footballer on the books of professional clubs"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed the wording. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Only current referee, maybe. Steve Baines played and refereed in the Football League. I'm sure there were others further back. Hack (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Definite clarification on the infobox

I've had a quick look through the archive for discussions relating to the question I am about to pose, but I could only find one from 2007 and one from 2014. If there are any others, please point me in their direction.

For a players' youthyears stats, should these not extend from the day the player joined the club until the the day they play their last game for the youth side?
If a young player plays senior games for a team and then moves to another team, where he features solely for the youth team before leaving for another side, how should this be shown? Using the example of Pyry Hannola, he played youth football for RoPS until 2017, before making his senior debut, also in 2017. He then left for Midtjylland, where he only played for the youth team. He has since moved on to HJK, where he will most likely play for the first team. Should this be displayed as it is, or should Midtjylland be moved from youthyears3 to clubs2? It doesn't really make sense to me to have Midtjylland in his senior clubs list, as he never made a senior appearance for them.
If a player has a pre-arranged transfer for the 1st January of any year, using 2019–20 as an example, should the years1 not read 20xx–2019 and then years2 read as 2020–? The player has his contract with club1 ended on 31 December 2019, and then his contract with club2 beginning on 1 January 2020. It doesn't make sense to me to extend the years1 to 2020 if the player was never a club1 player in 2020. If the player moves at 00:02 on 1 January 2020, then display club1 as 20xx–2020, sure, but for pre-arranged transfers, I think there is a clear cut-off point.

I hope these questions are as clear as possible, and I'm happy to go with consensus on every point raised, I just thought it was something worth clarifying. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No - youth years should not extend beyond senior years. What happens if a player spends 2/3 years featuring semi-regularly for both senior and youth team, or what if a senior player gets disciplined by being sent back to the youth team? We need a bright line cut-off and senior debut is sensible.
Like in 1, a player's clubs should not return to youth once he has made his senior debut.
No, they should read 2019–2020 and 2020–. That is how we have always done it, and it makes sense. Giant Snowman 15:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes. Though some people argue that the end date should be when the player has first debuted for the senior team, even if they continue to play youth football for a further year (for example), which I find ridiculous;
The way Pyry Hannola (or Eyad Hammoud) is displayed is correct;
There is long-standing consensus that, if a player joins on 1 January 2020, the prior club should read 20xx–2020 and the new club 2020– (even though I see your point).

Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Players like Harvey Elliott will likely move between the youth team and the first team for a large number of years. How do you propose to decide when a player leaves the youth team and joins the first team for good for the purposes of the infobox? What about the case I have provided of a senior player being sent back to the youth team? Whatever happened to your desire in previous recent conversations about the infobox being chronological? Giant Snowman 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple solution: overlap. We don't cut off years for national teams between youth and senior, why should we do the same for clubs? A player plays between 2014 and 2018 for a club in the youth league, and between 2016 and 2020 in the senior league? Put 2014–2018 for the youth career and 2016–2020 in the senior career. Same thing for someone who played for England U17 between 2016 and 2018, and the senior team between 2017 and 2020. Put 2016–2018 for England U17, and 2017–2020 for England. Also, I don't know about you, but 2020– coming after 2017 seems pretty chronological to me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well of course it's not chronological, because it goes (youth) 2015, 2017-2019, (senior) 2016, 2020 which is nonsense. We have cut-off youth years when a player begins a senior career for years, that is standard, for the reasons I have explained above, and more (a player plays senior non-league football for a number of years and then gets a big break at a Premier League club, but joins their U23 squad initially. How would you display that? Saying they are a youth player at 22? Nonsense!) And club data and national team data are completely separate, as you fully know. Giant Snowman 16:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and "overlap" is not the simple solution. It is confusing and what sources are you relying upon to say a player's youth career has ended? Giant Snowman 16:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Youth career, Senior career, and National team are three separate sections of the infobox. I might as well say that (senior) 2017-2019, 2019- ;(national team) 2006, 2007- is not chronological. Clearly I'm talking about years being in chronological order within the same section (youth, senior, or nt). Why do you want pass Eyad Hammoud as a senior Sheffield Wednesday player between 2017 and 2019, when he has ONLY played youth football between those years, winning the U18 Professional Development League Division 2 in 2018–19? Can a senior player win a youth competition? Of course not. THAT is the real nonsense. All your examples are VERY EASILY fixed with my overlapping proposition. Actually, your last example doesn't EVEN need overlap. A player plays senior non-league football for a number of years and then gets a big break at a Premier League club, but joins their U23 squad initially. Well, just display his non-league football years in the senior career, and his (initial) U23 years in the youth career. I really don't see how it could be any clearer than that. We have U23 national team (considered youth), why would a a youth player at 22 be nonsense? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Youth and senior is still club career, which should flow chronologically - so ignore national team. You have still not explained how or why you would determine when a youth career ends. Is it when they reach a certain age? If so, what age? What if they migrate permanently to the first-team before that age? But what if they play the occasional game back in the youth team for fitness? What if a young player joins the first team at 16, plays there permanently for 3 years, and then gets injured so plays 1 game for the youth team for fitness? Do you want or need me to go on? The infobox is intended to be a brief summary of a player's career, you really need to stop trying to over-complicate matters. Giant Snowman 17:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

When a player stops being called up for the youth team for official youth league matches;
If those fitness games are official youth league games, then those years should be present in the infobox (be it one, two, or 20 games);
If you insist, go on;
You still haven't answered my query regarding Eyad Hammoud.

Can someone else please give their opinion? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

So you would want to display (for example) [youth years] 2010-2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2020 and [senior] 2015–2017, 2017–2018 etc, all for the same club, for a player who makes his first team debut in 2015, plays for the first-team until 2017, then spends one game every few months back in the youth team from 2017 to 2020? How are you going to police and source this madness? Giant Snowman 17:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously 2018, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2020 is ridiculous. Given that the player is still of property of the same club, it's not like he's transferring permanently from the youth to the senior side each time. I would write "[youth years] 2010-2015, 2017-2020 and [senior] 2015– " (with the assumption that he has played in the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 youth league competition). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this, I feel that we should see the youth team as a separate entity in terms of displaying it in the infobox. Overlapping should happen, because a player is appearing for both the youth and the senior teams, and this should be shown accordingly - otherwise what is the point in the youth section? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognise that that is ridiculous and completely against how we do things here. As I've said, the point of the infobox is to be a simple summary only. You now seem to be wanting to pick & choose what youth time gets displayed, even though that is what you have been previously suggesting? Giant Snowman 17:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As a separate point, would it be worth defining 'reserve' teams as going in either the youth or senior sections of the infobox? An under-18 player at a Premier League side is unlikely to be playing many games in both teams, but this changes for reserve players, who may be more involved with both. If we have clear consensus that reserve teams go under youth, then this would allow the 'youth' category to extend to the age of 23. If consensus says that it should go under the 'senior' category, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Another interesting comparison is the Chinese Super League, where players can be registered to a club until ages 23, 24, 25, etc and yet not make any senior appearances or even be on the bench. How would we display this in the infobox? Is it possible to have a standard cut-off age for youth football? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

By reserve teams do you mean clubs such as Juventus U23 and Barcelona B? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No no, sorry I was referring to Premier League U23 sides, mostly. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know how those work, but aren't U23 competitions in England separate from the senior ladder? Meaning that U23 competitions are regarded as youth, as far as I understand it, no? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's my understanding of how it works too, so I also strongly disagree with GiantSnowman's point that a 22 year old player cannot be a youth player. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not display reserve teams in the infobox, unless (like in France, Germany, Spain etc.) the reserve teams play in the same footballing pyramid as the senior team. So, for a Premier League reserve player, that would be youth career (unless, of course, they have already made their first-team debut...) PS the fact you don't know when an appropriate cut-off for youth football is shows how ridiculous your suggested change is. I never said a 22 year old cannot be a youth player, I said a 22 year old should not be considered a youth player after e.g. 6 years of senior play! Giant Snowman 17:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that a 22-y/o playing both senior and youth football is a youth player. We aren't defining players. We are just saying that if the guy played in the U19 league in 2020, the infobox should reflect that. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

But you said above that "Obviously 2018, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2020 is ridiculous" for a young senior player who spends small periods of time (the odd game every few months) with the youth team... Giant Snowman 18:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you really this dense? I stated that I would write "[youth years] 2010-2015, 2017-2020 and [senior] 2015– " (with the assumption that he has played in the 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 youth league competition), which you still wouldn't agree with. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. You have not made it clear why you would include some youth time but not all? Giant Snowman 18:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

When did I say that? 2017-2020 encompasses 2018, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2020. We put 2007-2020 as a national team period for someone who has played 20 of the 127 potential international games that NT has played. We obviously wouldn't put "2007, 2007, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2009, [...], 2020". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, ignore national teams - we're only talking about club career. Saying '2017-2020' implies a constant youth career, which is not the case. Are you deliberately trying to mislead and/or confuse readers? Giant Snowman 18:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I speak for myself and Nehme when I say: what we are looking for is for the complete youth career of a footballer to be displayed in the infobox. If their first youth appearance was in 2015 and their last in 2020, then it should be displayed as 2015–2020, regardless of whether they made their senior debut in 2016 or 2020. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the national team comparison makes sense. If a player makes one appearance in 2011 and one in 2020, you wouldn't put 2011, 2020 - you'd put 2011–2020. If a player at Bayern Munich plays for the senior side, then makes an appearance in the 2014 in the reserve team while recovering from injury, then repeats this in 2019, would you put the Bayern Munich II tally as 2014, 2019 or would you put it as 2014-2019? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges with club and national team. Saying somebody had a 5 year youth career, when they've made 2 appearances in 2010 and 2015, is misleading. So then we go back to my example of a player who is sent back to the reserve/youth team after 15 years of senior career for discplinary reasons. Would you put his youth career as e.g. 2005-2020? Because that's what you're suggesting. Giant Snowman 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

1 month and 15 years are very different. The first is always within the same season, the second takes place 15 seasons later. For someone who has played 10 youth football games in 2018, I would put 2018. For someone who has played 5 youth football games in 2005 and 5 in 2020, I would put 2005 and 2020 separately. We need to distinguish playing 1 match every other month, and playing the next youth game after 15 years. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think common sense is needed, a player disciplined by the club by being sent to the reserves is being sent to train with the youth team, so this should be reflected by adding that data to the youth section. But I'm not suggesting having something as silly as 2018, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2019, 2020. There would most likely be a gap in the years between them playing solely senior football and being disciplined, and this gap would be reflected by having 2005-20xx for their youth career, and then 2020 just below that.

I've seen a couple of players in the Caribbean who have gone to college in the US. They play from 2015-2017 for their club team, and then go to college for two years, from 2017-2019, they then return to their original club team. I think this should obviously be displayed as club1 = 2015-2017 club2 = 2019- and then the collegeyears1 = 2017-2019 - even though club1 and club2 are the same. I think this should be seen as the same players disciplined, just in reverse. So have the same team for youthyears1 and youthyears2, with a consistent years1 for their senior career.

I hope this makes sense. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Nehme - but what rules do you have to guide people on what is appropriate or not for adding to the youth years? How many games per month/year? How do you source that?

David - thanks for confirming that (respectfully) you don't have a clue - you want to add a 35 year old to the youth team!!! Insanity. (PS I agree with you on the college stuff though, because that is a completely different system to club, just as national is, hence why we treat them all differently). Giant Snowman 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If under-23s count as youth career, how about Pablo Hernández, who played with Leeds' under 23s at the age of 34.^[1] That would be ludicrous. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you! That is why we need (and have) a clear cut off between youth and senior, and that is why it has always been senior debut. It's not perfect, but it makes sense and it works. Giant Snowman 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact is, he appeared in a youth game, doesn't matter how old he is. If the youth section is for U18 and U23 games in English football, then yes, his youth years should say 2019 Leeds. It's the same as a 40 year old appearing for his nation's Olympic side as an overage player. He's still playing for an U23 side, and I believe this is the best way to represent this. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has played in the Professional Development League, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the infobox regardless of their age. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I've lost count of many times I've told you it's nonsense, but that's because it is. We do not, have not, and will not be putting 35 year old players who make the 1 appearance in a youth league as a youth player. Mention it in the prose, for sure, but not the infobox. Giant Snowman 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we, have we, and will we put 35 year old players who make the 1 appearance for the Olympic team as a wild card in the infobox? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, Giant Snowmam is trying to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with him into submission when we discuss this, and thinks that following some wikipedia rules is better than actually reflecting reality. Playing 1 senior game does not not end a player's youth career. Spike 'em (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not me trying to change anything, this is me trying my best to explain how things currently operate. And yet again, nobody has yet to suggest a workable solution for how we determine when the youth career has ended other than senior debut. Giant Snowman 19:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

When a player stops being called up for the youth team for official youth league matches. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: That won't work. It would be very difficult if not impossible to find a reliable source for that most of the time. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the whole premise of my (and probably David's) arguments is that we know the player's youth caps. If we don't, then cutting off the youth years when they made their senior debut seems reasonable if we know when they began youth football. Basically, if we know that a certain player began his youth career at Bologna in 2017, then made his senior debut for Bologna in 2019 but don't know anything else about his youth career, having him at 2017-2019 makes total sense. However, if we don't even know when he signed for Bologna (2016? 2017? 2009?) then I would just not even put a year parameter, and just leave Bologna in the youth section (if, for example, a source in 2018 talks about him playing youth football for Bologna, but doesn't say anything about when he signed for them). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideally we would go by the club website’s official squad profile. Unfortunately these are not updated. I would say that a player’s youth career ends the day they make their last youth team appearance. If they then return to the youth squad after a certain period of time, specifically for a one off, we will note this as a one off appearance with the year they made said appearance. We could name this period of time as a year, for example. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here - what sources are there that confirm the last youth team appearance (for pre-internet players especially), and trying to suggest a player who makes a one-off appearance 15 years into their career is in any way a youth player is, dare I say it, nonsense. It's the same reason we don't include trials and pre-season friendlies in the infobox. Giant Snowman 19:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that a 22-y/o playing both senior and youth football is a youth player. We aren't defining players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If we have a source (including clubs own website list of youth team players) saying a player is a youth team player at a certain date, then use it. If we don't then default to first team debut. Spike 'em (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is the sourcing isn't there, with many club websites poor, and especially for youth players - and it's pretty much non existent for players who were youth more than 5/10 years ago. So are you really suggesting two different rules? Because that is unworkable. Giant Snowman 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Luke Freeman is a classic case where there has been some back-and-forth on this issue. Made his first-team debut for Gillingham in November 2007 at the age of 15 while (obviously) still a youth player. Joined Arsenal in January 2008 and there's a source which specifically says this was on a youth contract (fairly obviously, as he was still only 15). Signed his first professional contract in April 2009 when he was 17. Currently his infobox indicates that his youth career ended completely in 2007 (when he was 15) and Arsenal are not mentioned in the youth section at all. So is this right......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, sod WP:V when there is a project rule to uphold. Spike 'em (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The Project rule is for infobox only, to keep the infobox as simple as possible. The main body of the article is for things like this. Giant Snowman 08:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is more consensus to change the way we display youth years in the infobox, rather than to keep it as it is. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that there is definite consensus (yet). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

But to change it to what? Some people say 'cut-off should be senior debut', others says 'cut-off should be senior debut unless there is a source showing them still playing for youth team' (but have not explained how they are going to apply that rule to all players), and others are saying 'keep them as a "youth" player for many years after they have moved to the senior team, even if they are 35'. Giant Snowman 08:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm only speaking on my behalf, but I'm not surprised if it's what the others feel. My opinion is that we have to be flexible: players for Juventus' youth or Real Madrid's youth (actually, even Charlton Athletic's youth given the in-depth coverage of youth football in England) are very different from Nejmeh's youth or Al-Faisaly's youth coverage-wise. There are a few possible options:

We know both when the player joined the youth setup, and when they stopped playing in official youth league competitions: we display the range (if reasonably continuous, so not the 15-year span example we talked about above), even if it overlaps with when the player made their senior debut;

The range, for me, should be continuous if he has played in consecutive seasons; I'll make two extreme examples:

They have played 1 game in the 2017-18 youth competition, 1 game in the 2018-19 competition, 1 game in 2019-20, 1 game in 2020-21, I would put 2017-2021 as a range;
They have played 25 games in 2017-18, 0 games in 2018-19, 20 games in 2019-20: I would write 2017-2018, and 2019-2020 (with 2018-2019 probably a range in the senior career)

(Obviously if the reason the player didn't play in 2018-19 was due to injury, and not because he played for a senior team, I would leave it as 2017-2020)

We only know when the player joined, but not when he stopped: we can reasonably end the period with when the player played his first senior match;
We only know when the player stopped playing in official youth competitions: we only write the end date (something such as {{0|0000}}–2017);
We don't know either when the player started or ended, just that he was part of a team's youth setup: we don't display any years at all, just the club. (In this case, I wouldn't be against cutting off the period, such as {{0|0000}}–2017, if the player made his senior debut in 2017).

Obviously, for a Nejmeh player option 4 is the most likely, whereas for a Juventus player it is fairly likely for a player to fall in the first option (if not, at least, in options 2 or 3). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So you are happy showing demonstrably false information in the infobox to keep it simple? Spike 'em (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Except, of course, it's not false. Giant Snowman 11:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox displays 2015–2017, the player wins the U19 youth league championship in July 2019; it's false. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

So Luke Freeman wasn't a youth team player for Arsenal? The categorisation of "1 senior game = no longer a youth player" is purely a wikipedia fact. Where is this ruling ever explained to the casual reader? Spike 'em (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox shows he was a player at Arsenal, which is correct. As is clear from this whole sorry exchange, the 'youth v senior' distinction is less than ideal. Would you want Pablo Hernández to be shown to be a Leeds youth player like has been suggested above? Giant Snowman 14:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not unless Leeds listed him as a youth team player at that stage. Again, where are these wikipedia conventions ever explained to a casual reader? Spike 'em (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You're relying on club info/3rd party sourcing that doesn't exist, as Microwave Anarchist said above! And I'm unaware of any complaints from readers as to how we have done things for the past 14+ years... Giant Snowman 07:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

well, this topic gets raised ever 6 months and you just keep arguing until people give up. Spike 'em (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2019/10/19/leeds-united-fans-react-to-pablo-hernandez-turning-out-for-u23s/

Consensus

I don't want this discussion to die down like every other time, and have to repeat the same exact things a few months from now. Can we try to reach a consensus? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't think that youth team should finish as soon as a first team appearance is made, and if we can find sources that show a player is still a youth team player then we should use them, even though we're may not be able to do so in all cases.

Saying a player is no longer a youth team player in opposition to verifiable sources goes against both WP:NOR and WP:V, which are far more important than a project rule of thumb. Spike 'em (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

and if this goes nowhere (again) then we should have an RfC to determine the outcome. Spike 'em (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And as I said above, these sources are not readily available! Giant Snowman 10:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

you oppose it even when there are sources available. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all rule. Spike 'em (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well no, there is, because that's how we operate here, it prevents anarchy. I'd be more willing to agree with you for the 'one-size-fits-all rule' that you are proposing if people above hadn't suggested the nonsense of 35 years olds being considered youth players...! Giant Snowman 10:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anarchy: there are many possible refinements to the "Stepping onto the pitch in a senior game ends youth career" rule before we hit that point. Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm all ears, but have yet to hear anything reasonable/workable. Giant Snowman 11:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Strong agree with the (seemingly predominant) view that "senior cap ends youth career" is misleading. As others have said, it seems obvious that a player could make a senior debut for one side only to join another club's youth team on a youth contract. In that case, at the very least, it seems silly that this should be reflected as a senior club. Surely nobody could disagree that in such case (Where I suggest sources would usually be available), the new club should be added to the youth clubs section. Macosal (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of having gaps in youth career/or senior careers, and would prefer the status quo of "senior cap ends youth career."--Ortizesp (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say that this is the always the case, rather than it just being a wikipedia rule? Spike 'em (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Having read this, I'm in favour of the overlap youth and senior, especially for those players who make a one-off or sporadic appearances. Now, with regards to some of the other stuff in there. I don't feel like getting sent to training with a youth team should be put in a youth section. The player is clearly part of the senior squad, it's just a punishment. Youth players get invited to train with the senior squad all the time, but that doesn't start their Senior clock. Heck, I'm sure senior players train with youth squads even without being punished. I'm sure if a player is injured and his team is travelling for an away game, it probably happens often that the player doesn't travel and may practice with a reserve team for fitness. The 35 year old in the youth team for 1 game also seems ridiculous to me. I'd just not include it, and maybe write it in the body section. Also, youth players will appear in Cup matches occasionally, but given its not a league match, those don't start their senior infobox though. I see nothing wrong with say a youth section going 2011-2018 and senior going 2016-2020. It's most accurate in my opinion. We've brought up college appearances as separate, but college players may have senior appearances during those years as well often in semi-pro leagues, which do get included. For example, Ifunanyachi Achara. If there can be overlap between College and Senior, why can't there be overlap between youth and senior? Here's another example. Tim Kübel won a U19 championship in 2013, but made an appearance for his senor debut with Dortmund II in 2011. He was clearly a youth system until 2013, why end it in 2011? He then went to US college in 2014-2017. He made semi-pro appearances in 2015 and 2016. Then went senior full time in 2018. Personally, I feel the overlaps here between youth/college/senior helpful and providing 'more and better' information than cutting it off a one-off appearance. RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Some good points there - but my question is this. If you agree that a 35 year old playing with the youth team (whether for discipline or training or whatever) on a one-off is "ridiculous", at what age does that stop being the case. For example, a 25 year old? Or a 20 year old who has played with the first team for 3 years solidly and then gets injured, makes 1 youth appearance, and then is back to first-team exclusivity? etc. Giant Snowman 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, when the player is a regular in that competition. If the player is a regular "first team" player in the U19 league, we should represent that in the youth section. If he has only played 1 youth game (for injury recovery reasons), before going back to the senior side and playing the rest of the season there, we can omit it from the youth section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

How does one define "regular"? I'm not trying to be difficult (despite what some of you might think) - I am concerned that such vague/subjective guidelines will simply lead to discrepancies across articles, and disputes. Giant Snowman 16:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to use logic. A 20-y/o player playing seven U19 league games out of 38 is obviously a regular (a reserve, at that, but still a "first team" player). A 27 y/o who has been out for injury reasons for 3 months, has played one or two U21 league games, before going back to his senior team, isn't a regular. I think the distinction is the reason why a player is playing U19/21/etc. football. Is he actually under the age of 19, 21, etc.? And is he being called up to multiple (not 1-2) matches that season? Then we should represent it. Is he a senior player who is playing youth football for disciplinary or injury reasons? We can omit it.

Another point: what about completely removing the youth section from the infobox? Anything youth-related can be described in the body, and anyway we don't show apps + goals for youth football (unlike college or senior football). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove youth from the infobox, instead I could support a merge of youth and senior - so the infobox displays college career, club career (including both 'youth' and 'senior'), and international/representative career only. Given the clear difficulty in differentiating between the two, that solves that problem. Giant Snowman 16:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see the clear difficulty in differentiation. Honestly, I think that it's fairly obvious to most editors what the most logical solution is. I don't see how merging youth and senior would solve anything. Just put the exact same clubs and year-span in the youth section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There clearly is a problem, as shown above, at previous discussions, and by your own suggestion to remove the youth years full stop! Giant Snowman 21:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion was an (apparently futile) attempt at compromising with you. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that every alternative suggestion to youth career ending at the beginning of senior career is fuzzy, ambiguous and therefore unworkable. The current system provides a clear line in the sand which no other suggestion does. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It does go against WP:V though, as is possibly in many cases to show that a youth career did not end at the time WP:FOOTY has decided. I have no problem with using this rule as a default position, but to say it must be used in every situation means that lots of articles are inaccurate because it makes it easier to maintain another set of articles. I also think that GS's suggestion above is worthy of more thought / discussion. Spike 'em (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Image copyright / commons?

Anyone here an expert on image copyright? Pretty sure the image added in [9] on Jay Rodriguez is copyrighted. Reverse google image search finds it in local Lancashire papers and as a Getty images stock picture. But it's hosted on Commons, and I've never taken any action there. Gricehead (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Gricehead Looks like someone has tagged the file on Commons as missing the appropriate permissions, so if they aren't provided in 6 days then it'll be deleted. I agree it looks like a copyright violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Chelsea F.C. players

I feel this has gone through some dodgy editing, and for some reason, the bottom of the list is bugged out, but I can't see how to fix it. Anyone able to fix it? Govvy (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: - Any better?. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

lol, you made that look simple and I was messing around for a few minutes trying to figure that out! heh. Govvy (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

George Boardman

I believe, based on a number of non-RS, that there was a George Boardman (born 1904) (potentially father of George Boardman (footballer, born 1943)?) who played for Partick Thistle and Bradford Park Avenue, amongst others. Did he play in a WP:FPL to meet NFOOTBALL? He is not listed at ENFA, and I am unsure if his Partick games were in the First Division? Giant Snowman 21:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This shows him playing against Hearts in 1932 in what was then called the A Division (top flight) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks - stub created at George Boardman (footballer, born 1904). Giant Snowman 10:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Football lineup templates

Hi, I was planning on dealing with deprecated template {{Football match line-ups}} which says it should be replaced with the {{fbml}} series of template, but that only seems to be used once at 2016 Kenyan Super Cup. Looking at some random articles at Category:Association football finals and all the ones I looked at didn't use any template for their match lineups. Are table style lineups the preferred way to do them or would it be beneficial to have a template for these? If wikitext tables are preffered {{fbml}} and associated templates should probably be taken to TfD as well. --Trialpears (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Wikitables are almost always used. I don't see the benefit of that template, the line-up table formatting is not complex. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thought so. I've nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_29#Template:Fbml --Trialpears (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

List of nationality transfers in association football

I went to this page and noted that there are plenty of inconsistencies with who is supposed to be in the article and what is actually in the article. The Talk Page for the article goes into more detail. The short version is the article names exceptions, but then those exceptions are ignored and included. I feel like this article needs a consensus as to what should be included (and re-writing of the article rules at the top) and probably a rename before a clean-up is attempted. Perhaps a re-name like "List of players who have played for multiple national teams". I feel like because the rule list is so long, people ignore it while editing. My vote would just be to make it very basic and include only players who have been capped for two different nations (junior and/or senior) and not eligibility for other countries (ie. Player A was born in country X, but only ever played for country Y does not get included). Possible exception is players who switched countries due to country not existing (ie. representing Czechslovakia and then Czech Republic). RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I would even just include players who switched between only senior teams, making the list more reasonable. A LOT of players have switched from youth to youth, or from youth to senior. The list would be pedantically long. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with senior only. Would make it much easier and straight-forward and likely keep the article from getting derailed again. Another potential area would be non-FIFA teams. For example, I would say players representing Catalonia (such as Cesc Fàbregas) shouldn't be included since those appearances are in friendlies and non-official. However, players such as Florent Malouda and Jocelyn Angloma moved to represent non-FIFA-member but Concacaf-member teams in official CONCACAF competitions. Those give me a bit more pause. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic is not notable - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players with dual nationality. Giant Snowman 17:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the topic is notable if strictly restricted to cases such as Diego Costa. This way, the list would contain a reasonable amount of players. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: Malouda wasn't eligible for the Gold Cup since he was cap-tied to France (caused French Guiana to forfeit) --SuperJew (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this topic could be both notable and manageable if proper guidelines were adhered to, e.g the player has to have played for at least two different FIFA national teams at senior level. That cuts out the players who have dual nationality as civilians - which was the problem in 2010 - those who played for one country at youth level and another at senior level, and other anomalies like Team GB, Catalonia/Basque Country etc, and Kosovo pre-official approval. We should then be left with a fairly finite, easily verifiable list. Crowsus (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the question itself, I agree with above - list should be only for players who have played for two senior FIFA national teams. The list also currently has a few criteria at the beginning but it doesn't seem to adhere to it. Also (of course) it should be referenced. --SuperJew (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew, Crowsus, Nehme1499, and GiantSnowman: I went ahead through every player and checked which had played for two senior teams. I didn't save it in the article but did in my Sandbox User:RedPatchBoy/sandbox. I left some anomalies like B teams. No youth teams. Senior only. Did not put references. Was lots of pages no time for that. If you guys agree I'll update the page with my list. Article will then need a title change. Let me know what you think RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks better than the current article, although I would question whether England B, Catalonia and the Basque Country are actually countries. Many players have played for Spain and Catalonia, so don't want to go down that wormhole. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I would also remove all the various ConIFA nations, B teams, and non-FIFA/UEFA/AFC/CONMEBOL/etc. nations. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

[slight edit conflict] My opinion: drop the B and C teamers, it opens the door to other interpretations of what counts and what doesn't - so A internationals only. Definitely drop Amorebieta, Balde, Yagan, one of their teams isn't FIFA registered. Angloma and Malouda are a bit of an anomaly with how those teams are recognised, if they played in a FIFA tournament (I think both did?) then fair enough. There needs to be more explanation re the former Soviet / Yugoslav states: i now understand why Tsymbalar and Salenko are there and others not, but it should be clear in that article. I would also link to the List of Dual Ireland international footballers and List of East Germany international footballers (8 played for unified Germany) with a bit of text too. Crowsus (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Crowsus: Technically, Malouda played in the Gold Cup. But the match was forfeited because he wasn't eligible --SuperJew (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also agree it should be only FIFA national teams. I made a little change in the column and adding a couple of players who fit the criteria. I think we should have a default sorting order. Perhaps by family name? --SuperJew (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We should watch out for non-FIFA nations that are part of organizations such as the AFC and the OFC (see Kiribati). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions above (dropping region teams like Catalonia, dropping B/C teams). I agree with default sort order by surname (I left it in the jumbled mess it was because I was tired after edditing. IT would definitely help, I did catch multiple players listed twice because it was not organized). Personally I'm okay with including teams approved by CONCACAF/OFC/etc that are not FIFA approved - but not CONifa teams, unless you all feel that including those opens up "a can of worms" to what this was before (would probably mainly be teams like Catalonia getting added, which we can make a note at the top saying are not in the list) RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and without having gone into the articles to check, i would imagine that the South Sudan players should be removed (and their situation added to the text) if they originate from that part of the world and started playing for their country when it split from Sudan, as that would be the same situation as the Soviet or Yugoslav players, particularly the latter as Yugoslavia continued as Serbia and Montenegro while USSR ceased to exist, though Russia took its identity in most senses. Crowsus (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated article in User:RedPatchBoy/sandbox. I removed some players and updated rules at the top as well. Does it look good now? (Apart from needing to be sorted by surname) Feel free to edit it even though it is in my sandbox. If you guys approve I fill put it into the real article RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: I'd suggest removing the ones that switched to Kosovo. The switches were allowed under the rules about the breakup of countries (Kosovo being a breakaway from Serbia), but just slightly unusual in that the players had played for Albania instead. Number 5 7 21:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I added a sortableness by family name for the athlete name. Honestly when I clicked it to see what it looks, it's a bit jumbled with nations all over. Having the sorting by nation (either Original or nation switched to) would look better aesthetically imo, but I'm not sure I want to give one weight over the other as the primary default sorting. Be happy to hear your thoughts before going either way :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Next big question: Should we include women footballers? :) --SuperJew (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If what you are trying to do is create a list of all Category:Dual internationalists (football) then the article needs to be named something like that, not 'nationality transfer', which is something different. Giant Snowman 21:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the sorter. I did notice the jumble as well. I do feel it looks cleaner sorting by original country. I added one more player, but I wasn't sure how to sort it since his page has a tag in his name. Women I feel should get its own page OR a separate table. Part of the issue of the original article was a ridiculous amount of names. A separate article/table would help keep it manageable . @GiantSnowman, a name change was also my intention. I pitched that at the beginning. I agree with you that the current title does not fit, and leads to too much ambiguity which is what led to the article getting out of hand.RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You want it at List of dual internationalists in association football or similar. Giant Snowman 21:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Something like that works. I feel we should add the word Senior in there to prevent the addition of Junior teams. I hadn't realized there was a Category for this as well already. Thanks for giving that link. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No need for the senior/junior separation, that can be made clear on the article itself - just like e.g. List of Manchester United F.C. players is not a list of every single player to ever play for Man Utd at any level... Giant Snowman 21:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I also just found we have these articles: List of sportspeople who competed for more than one nation, List of sportspeople with dual nationality. Should prob be spun out from there also when created to mainspace. --SuperJew (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of replacing the article and renaming it, maybe it's better to create a new article and propose the old one for deletion. What do you think?RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I proposed the original article for deletion at this page. We can then create a fresh page RedPatchBoy (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating this section, the result of the AfD was Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nationality transfers in association football RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

... and List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams has been created. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Side note: Category:Dual internationalists (football) should only include players from List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bernd Leno

An IP is persistently adding an honour that is not supported by the source they're using, I'm on three reverts so could someone take a look? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

He's not even eligible for that FA Cup honour. If the IP in question keeps adding it I would suggest requesting page protection. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep. He wasn't in the matchday squad so no medal for him. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not only was he not in the matchday squad, he didn't play a single minute of FA Cup football this season. One of the IP's edit summaries says "Source is eligible, shows Leno played in a game during the FA Cup campaign and therefore eligible for a medal/honour" but the source to which he refers shows clearly that Leno was an unused substitute -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

He may well have a medal - each club gets 40 to distribute amongst players and staff - but unless we get an RS showing how Arsenal distributed theirs, we can't say that either. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to say, Alessandraronaldo, who may well be the same person as the IP, is on a spree of adding highly-questionable FA Cup honours to players. He/she added the 2017 FA Cup to Ainsley Maitland-Niles, citing as a reference the BBC report on the final, in which AMN literally isn't mentioned once (because he wasn't in the squad) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sandro Ramirez stats missing

Just noticed there are no club stats for this season for his loan spell at Valladolid. I'm no good at editing tables so be great if someone could take care of that. douts (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season

There's an edit war at the 2020–21 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season article. If someone who edits these kind of articles can please review and clean up that would be appreciated! Giant Snowman 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies and GiantSnowman: The protection has expired and the article remains unchanged.--Sakiv (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arab Nations Cup

Hello. There is a confusion in the article, this competition is a pan-Arab tournament and not an Arab Nations Cup. Organised by Qatar Football Association (QFA) and FIFA, and not by Union of Arab Football Associations. See Qatar2022. --86.212.179.29 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Premier League clubs

Can I ask, the section that says chart with the massive strange grey block image/map thing, what's is suppose to say? Govvy (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That chart has just the worst colour scheme! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

colours... O well, I can click on club pages, but really can't read that what so ever, really, really hard to read or use. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's trying to tell us what years teams were in the PL, but it's also been mixed with which teams have won the league ever, which is why it's such a mess. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Another question on that article - why in the section headed "table" are flags used to identify clubs from Wales..........and also Yorkshire?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude I just removed Yorkshire, as obviously not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The flags should go completely. These teams aren't representing Wales. So much cruft Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The teams aren't "representing" Wales as such, but it is useful to highlight the teams that "shouldn't" be competing in the English league system with a flag. After all, Cardiff and Swansea aren't members of The Football Association, they're affiliated to the Football Association of Wales. – Pee Jay 15:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The city maps (in particular the Manchester and Birmingham ones) are very hard to make out too. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If we had versions of those city maps without the motorways and built-up areas marked, they'd be a lot more legible. Also, the "Overview of clubs by season" section can be got rid of since we have the Performance record of clubs in the Premier League article (although that title needs amending!) – Pee Jay 15:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Kassies

Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi has brought it to my attention that Kassies should no longer be used for coefficient purposes and that only the UEFA site should be used. My understanding over the years is that Kassies was more frequently used because the UEFA site was not regularly updated or was updated with inaccurate numbers or sometimes both. I don't know if that situation has improved. I do not regularly update coefficients and have no strong opinion on the matter and thought I would bring the question here for comments. Equineducklings (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If a coefficient past or present is given on the UEFA website, there's no reason to use any other site. However, for past info not present on the UEFA site, I don't see any reason not to use Bert Kassies' site. Did User:Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi give any particular reason not to use that site? – Pee Jay 15:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe the editor's problem with Kassies has to do with current coefficients being updated before UEFA. These two edit summaries are all I have to go on: :"The source is not notable" and "UEFA has not updated it yet until the round of 16 is over, so never depend to Kassies, because it is not notable" Equineducklings (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that's fair. Kassies' info is based on his interpretation of the way in which coefficients are calculated, which may not always be accurate. But in terms of past content, I've never known him to be in error. As for the site being described as "not notable", I don't think that's correct use of "notable" in this context. – Pee Jay 17:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Does that mean only the UEFA site should be used for current coefficient rankings? That should work as long as UEFA's updates are current, I remember that being a complaint of editors previously. I certainly don't have a problem waiting to make changes, but I don't edit coefficients frequently. Also, the editor has been removing Kassies refs, is that the thing to do moving forward? Equineducklings (talk) 03:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever edited coefficients, but I've always known Kassies to be reliable and often the best source of information. If there's an equivalent choice between Kassies and UEFA I would use UEFA, but in general I don't understand why we would need to remove these references especially since Kassies maintains a wealth of historical information and is more rapidly updated than the official website. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any reason to remove Kassies as a source. Seems more like User:Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi has a case of the WP:IDONTLIKEITs. – Pee Jay 11:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison

Is anyone able to rebuild this whole article, it completely violates WP:ACCESS, due to difficulty with mini browsers and special needs browsers. It's no good for visual readers either. To be honest I am shocked that people want to keep it when we have all the same information at other pages that can be accessed and easier to read. Govvy (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I could have sworn that I afd'ed that article. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Malo95 put it through AfD, I feel like I could put it through AfD again, however, the article has lots of issues! I rather it got WP:TNTed, and all the citations added are 404, so I don't know why, but it feels like it's fake citations!! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It was only closed as "keep" four days ago, I don't think AfDing it again would go down well..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The citations were fine when I added them about a week ago, but UEFA seems to be in the middle of a restructuring of its website and User:Nightfall has been helpfully updating the sources where possible. I think we're verging into WP:DROPTHESTICK territory here, Govvy. – Pee Jay 15:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: with all the colours in use I can see why it may be an access issue and I'd be happy to help construct a different scheme that is suitable for all users, could you help to guide on what would work and what wouldn't? Suggest we could either try it out on one of our talk pages or at the article's, all we'd really need to do is get the key in an acceptable way and that we could quickly be replicated across the tables. Crowsus (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's also effectively wrong (or at least misleading). In 1992-93 and 1993-94 the group stage was for the last 8 (two groups of four). The second round wasn't a qualifying round (i.e. a round where some teams qualify and join others that are already qualified), it was the round of 16, yet the teams knocked out at that stage aren't shown. So those two years only have 8 teams listed, whilst the others have 16 (or, later, 32). The access problems are worse. That Champions colour fails it completely, and I suspect the QF colour does as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a difficult one, because in those years the 'Champions League' branding only applied to the last 8 groups, so it could be interpreted that the rounds before were qualifying stages. I would also argue that the colour used for the group stage participants in those seasons should be the 'quarter final' colour used in the subsequent seasons, probably with an explanatory note. But then that also means the group stage (final 16) in 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97 should use that 'higher' colour, and I'm open to suggestion about the 24 teams in 97-98 and 98-99,after all that was still the round before the QFs. Definitely adjustments to be made and interpretations to be debated. But i do think the article is valid. Crowsus (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The black colour for champions, apparently it has a C in the box, can't see that at all. The next one down I can read but that might violate, can we get rid of the other colours? Govvy (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed all the colours - they all now align with WP:ACCESS. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, different hex, but looks like the same colour for both. Govvy (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd hope we could keep some colour boxes back from the winners to the QFs as that's a decent achievement by most standards and there's a group of 8 teams of some sort in every season. Wouldn't object to removing them for the placings beforehand which would resolve the issues I mentioned earlier. Crowsus (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've switched that pale green out, hopefully that's better. Certainly wouldn't be opposed to just unsing uncoloured boxes for everything before QF stage. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the colors should form a gradient spectrum from earlier rounds to further rounds in order to be intuitive. Currently, using purple for runners-up is very counter-intuitive (plus, I think it's a little too similar to pink for R16). I suggest we make these swaps: purple (probably make it a little more blue-ish) for R16, pink for QF, orange for SF, and yellow for F. --Portalian (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As for now, I slightly changed purple to CCCCFF and made those color swaps. --Portalian (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a mention for font size, which is also an accessibility issue. Although large tables may need a smaller font to get them to fit on screen, MOS:FONTSIZE says that "Under no circumstances (my highlighting) should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size". That table is set to 80%, and to me at least is almost unreadably small. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Font sizes, ugg, how about UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison for font size! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest we should follow a similar colour scheme that has already been established across wikipedia sports articles, and can been seen in Ronnie O'Sullivan#Performance and rankings timeline, Phil Taylor career statistics#Performance timelines, and Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines Jopal22 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Promotion/Relegation playoffs

Should these playoffs only be placed in the article of the higher league? I recently removed them when someone added the playoffs to the lower league. After seeing it added a couple more times in other places, I wanted to see where these should be. For example, should they be in 2019–20 Swiss Challenge League or only in 2019–20 Swiss Super League. Equineducklings (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be in both articles. Teams from both divisions are involved, and will each end up in one of those two same divisions the following season, so I think it's fine to have them in both. – Pee Jay 15:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO the play-offs should only be in one article to save duplication and if they involve a team from a higher league, then they should be in the article of the higher league. This is the case in Scotland, for example: 2018–19_Scottish_Premiership#Premiership_play-offs where each play-off in the four national leagues involves one team from the higher league. But there should be proper linking for users to follow - e.g. the league table play-off position(s) linking to the higher league article.Boothy m (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be at both. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I would include them at the higher league article. Kante4 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boothy m: To avoid duplication, why don't we transclude the play-off section from the higher league article to the lower league one? To me, that seems like a simple way to ensure it's fully covered in both articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that as it means the information is in both places, but it's still duplication, which others seem to have a problem with. – Pee Jay 16:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why duplication is an issue. I agree with Stevie's method. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

They need to be in both articles. They're a sub-competition which teams from each competition appear in. Forcing users to click a link because they're on the "wrong" article would not be good for accessibility, though I think it's possible to transclude the information so we only have to update it in one place. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I think they should be in both. They're part of both league's seasons. Transclusion is a good idea. {{#section-h:Article name|Section name}} is the way to do it (just in case anyone wasn't sure). Number 5 7 20:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

José Luis González Vázquez

Are there any Spanish editors who can check this one out? Govvy (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a machine translation of the same article on es.wiki es:José Luis González Vázquez Gricehead (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Article rename request - more votes needed

Hi all, there is an article rename request that has been stuck for about 3 weeks now. Posting it here in a more visible spot to perhaps get some more votes to get it out of limbo status it is in and reach a consensus on one of the two options. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mauro_Cichero#Requested_move_20_July_2020 RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Flags in the friendlies section of season articles

Me and another editor have had a disagreement about the use of flagicons within football boxes. Per MOS:FLAG, I feel that, although I have added them before, flagicons should not be used in football boxes since the club is not representing that nation and it adds undue emphasis to the nationality of the team. However, the other editor points out that they are commonly used across season articles. Any thoughts? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There was an RfC at MOS:ICON on this exact subject which was closed as "Do not use the flag icons for friendly matches." See Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

How do clubs not represent their countries when they play other foreign teams in friendlies? According to your narratives the national teams also don't represent their nations when the play each other.--Sakiv (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind foreign clubs having flags but the Coventry supporting season article guy is adding English flags in transfer boxes for loans and transfers between two English clubs.--Echetus Xe 13:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Dani Guindos

Does he really pass NFooty or not? Govvy (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't look to have played or managed in a fully professional league or international match (he was a coach at Equatorial Guinea, which doesn't count), so doesn't look like he does pass WP:NFOOTY. Pinging Das osmnezz as the article creator- their articles usually do (just about) pass WP:NFOOTY, so maybe they could help. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

He was the coach of the Equatorial Guinea national football team (a FIFA member) between 13 October 2019 and 7 November 2019; he took part in two games as their manager (v Togo and v Congo). Therefore, he should pass WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice one, article seems much better also, cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Willian and other big transfers

Hi guys, could you please keep an eye on Willian (footballer, born 1988), lots of vandalism, also any other big Premier League signings that are/were announced, for example Pierre-Emile Højbjerg and Kostas Tsimikas. As usual when a big news story breaks, there does be 100s of unhelpful edits from throw-away accounts and IPs, which only messes up the edit history, for example 153 silly edits on Kostas Tsimikas between 9 and 10 August. JMHamo (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the Willian page - let me know if any others are affected. Højbjerg had quieted down and Tsimikas is already protected. Giant Snowman 10:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Milot Rashica needs protection until his transfer to Aston Villa is officially announced. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected. Woody (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

non-league season articles

A lot of them are being deleted, such as here. That is one of Mansfield Town's five non-league season articles. I can't see 2009–10 Mansfield Town F.C. season not being deleted. Can we organise a bit and delete the non-league season articles en masse rather than one at a time? The result is messed up templates like this and I think it would be better to have the disruption all at once so we can get it over with.--Echetus Xe 10:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

A big AFD with all that wouldn't be contentious (i.e. avoid any that may pass GNG) would be a good idea. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Is "totalfootballanalysis.com" considered a WP:RS?

Hello all. In a discussion with CitizenKang414 relating to flag icons and positions of players in the 2019 EFL Championship play-off Final, they have added a link to "totalfootballanalysis.com" (e.g. this) to the article. My question is simply this: does the project consider this to be a reliable source? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've never heard of it and don't know its credentials - so I'm going to say 'no'. Giant Snowman 20:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Historians?

While stub-sorting I came across List of sports history organisations, which has been around since 2002 but was recently tagged as a stub. It's US-dominated (Olympics plus North America only) and doesn't include football apart from the US and Canadian games. Presumably there does exist at least one society of footy historians, whose existence can be verified by its website? If so, please add it/them. Thanks. PamD

@PamD: the article isn't great, but I've added one. Giant Snowman 15:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Template fs player

Okay, what's happened? Why has it changed and why is it looking transacted? Govvy (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe it is something to do with the fact that it is currently being merged? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like the new one, alternative code has disappeared from the flag-icons which is annoying. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, speech software doesn't read the nationality out anymore in the new format. Can't read it at all in fact. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't work out what has caused it to change like that. Number 57 is the only person who has edited that page this month so perhaps he would have a better idea. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Information regarding the new layout is available at the talk page. I see the alt text when viewing the HTML source, I do not know why speech software would be unable to read it. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Different flag template? Its now using {{fba}} instead of {{#invoke:flag|icon|...}}. Now the text abbreviation of the country is given so perhaps readout on the flag option was considered redundant. — Jts1882 | talk 15:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why it's redundant, it should still say the country name if you ask me. I did notice there is a lot of conversation on the template talk page. I guess I should try and stick to that page. Govvy (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

109.97.161.247

Please keep an eye out for 109.97.161.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has been editing a LOT of footballer articles and not leaving edit summaries. I've rolled back what I've found, since I noticed many of the stat edits were incorrect. Also, please note that this is a dynamic address (looks like a lot of similar edits came out of 109.97.152.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for example), so any block should cover the entire range. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

They've just done it again at Antoni Ivanov. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a block is definitely needed. They seem to be acting in good faith but 90% of their edits are disruptive: 1. removing loan spells, 2. adding unsourced stats tables, 3. not updating timestamp when updating caps. Hopefully, a block will get them to engage. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting article

At the Request article section, I requested that the FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich^[1] match be created just like this one (not because of the same scoreline). I dunno if it's notable enough for creation. Josedimaria237 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that it is Barcelona's heaviest defeat in over 70 years in all competitions, the first time they have conceded eight goals in 74 years, and their worst ever defeat in Europe, I would assume the article to be notable (much like Brazil 1–7 Germany). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say it is notable. Kante4 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It got created. Kante4 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Can the long-term significance of the match really be known two days later? Barcelona 6–1 Paris Saint-Germain was not created until December of that year. The Brazil v Germany match was also far more consequential. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what happens, the match broke some pretty significant long-standing records/statistics. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Update, a user has requested a name change on this article Talk:FC Barcelona 2–8 FC Bayern Munich#Requested move 17 August 2020. I'm not sure of convention on these types of articles, but wanted to pass information along RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "Brilliant Bayern smash Barcelona to reach semis". BBC.com. 14 August 2020.

Maximus Tainio

He only just signed to FC Haka and then he's at AC Kajaani, this must surely be a loan move to Kajaani, but I am struggling to find any sources, anyone able to find something? Govvy (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.aamulehti.fi/a/64217e3b-2c06-4744-ab72-851c15cc3c4f RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes he was on a short-term loan. I've added a source and amended the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, well done, I really was struggling to find a source earlier. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Youth career in infobox

Unfortunately the discussion was archived as the discussion was abandoned. Can we try to reach a consensus? (archived discussion) Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a few suggestions were put forward:

the status quo (youth career ending upon the first senior appearance)
the youth team years and senior team years overlapping, such that the youth team years reflect matches played at youth level
suggestion 2 but with common sense (i.e. Pablo Hernández not being shown as a leeds youth player)
using the clubs official website as an indication of whether the player is youth or senior
merging the youth and senior sections of the infobox
some other convoluted system that varies based on how many appearances they made, what sources are available, what colour socks the player was wearing, the lunar calendar, the number of cats they own, life, the universe and everything

I support retaining the status quo, since reliable none of the other suggestions both sensible and verifiable. Suggestion 2 has ridiculous results, whilst suggestion 3 does not make it clear where the youth career should end, and so is most likely even more problematic. In an ideal world, we could use the fourth, but certainly not retrospectively and given that the club websites are updated once in a blue moon, it isn't practical. The fifth suggestion may be worth more discussion though. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

3. could work. It's not just common sense: You wouldn't show players like Pablo Hernández as youth players because they are beyond the regular age limit of the youth sides (under-23 I think it usually is?). Robby.is.on (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. What about when players are clearly first-team players, albeit under-23, but make the odd appearance for the youth team such as Jean-Kévin Augustin? [10] (I can't ever think of any non-Leeds United examples)

I support the status quo.--Echetus Xe 10:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

1 (status quo) or possibly 5 (merging the sections), everything else is unworkable I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 10:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the sections should probably be merged. There isn't really any meaningful difference between being a youth player and a senior player any more other than that the player's club starts considering them for first-team selection. I still think it's ridiculous that people think a first-team appearance automatically ends a player's youth career, but these are ridiculous times. – Pee Jay 17:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I'm in favour of Option 3, I don't see how it's so contentious. I think the merging is not ideal, given some player's youth sections start when they are age 5. Including age 5 with senior caps is just as ridiculous as including that 35 year old in a youth section. Some compromises I could propose are ending youth section at a certain age (23 which is usually the end of youth ages - unless of course they become full-time senior prior to that obviously), or at 3 senior caps which would to me seem that once that is passed, it's the end of those token one-off appearances. For example, a situation like this where FC Rostov was forced to play their youth team in a match due to the main team having to quarantine. All of those players went right back to the youth team after the match, clearly they are not senior players yet - they all have 1 and only 1 cap. I feel like that would fall under the 'common sense' area. RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer option 3 (as argued extensively in the archived discussion linked above). In case option 3 is not doable, I would prefer to compromise with 5 (or, even, an "Option 7", which would involve removing all youth years altogether). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of option 7. Perhaps that would encourage people to write and properly source more prose! – Pee Jay 18:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Given how contentious this is, Option 7 seems quite sensible. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of Option 7. We don't show youth clubs for other sports. While football is a bit more unique than other sports, I feel like this is a reasonable view. Youth clubs can be included in the body of the article and just omitted from the infobox. When looking up a player, I'm not exactly interested in where they played at age 11. If this option 7 does become what we decide, I would however, vote to have the College section remain, since that's an already separate section from youth.RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Regardless of what happens to the youth section, the college section should stay. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Option 7 is great. The infobox should be concise and about the notable parts of the player's career. The youth section is (almost always) not notable, and often will have many clubs, but hardly any information - we don't put in caps+goals for youth and half the time years are unknown. (on that point college career is more notable, and the information more available) --SuperJew (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue with option 7 is - when do you start the senior career? I know some editors who begin it when they turn professional, or when they are on the first-team bench, not when they make an appearance. 7 should be a last resort IMHO, youth career is important, you get many players who spent all of their formative years at a club and no mention of it is not a true reflection of their career. Giant Snowman 21:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The youth career can be appropriately mentioned in prose. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So how would Option 7 get implemented in technical terms - simply the field is made invalid in the template, and individual editors have to go into every affected page and add in the player's youth career into the prose? Because that's not acceptable to me. Crowsus (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the inbox if it's not mentioned in the rest of the article anyway. Spike 'em (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly: that would be unsourced content and should be removed from the infobox (regardless of whatever option we chose). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

But most bios do have it mentioned and referenced in the prose, and reflected in the infobox. So what's the issue here? Giant Snowman 10:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No issue there then. Removing the youth career from the infobox wouldn't be problematic for those players because the information wouldn't be removed from the article, just only made present in prose. Whereas, for the opposite situation in which the youth career has NOT been mentioned and referenced in prose, removing the youth parameters from the infobox would again only be benificial, because those players would have had unsourced content in the infobox, which should have been removed regardless. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the issue is you're trying to remove sourced and important content from the infobox - why? Giant Snowman 10:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to remove sourced content from the infobox: on the contrary, I want to show the correct year range when sourced as I have been extensively explaining for over a month now. However, since this discussion hasn't been going anywhere (partially due to your lack of will to compromise), the second-best option for me would be to completely remove the section from the infobox altogether. Anyway, as other editors have pointed out, other sports infoboxes don't have the youth career, so it's not that necessary. Relevant and notable information can be written in prose (the same way we don't show 3rd place finishes in the honours section; if it's notable, we can write it in prose in the body of the article). Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: The claim made here is that the youth career isn't important content. --SuperJew (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And I'm saying it is. Giant Snowman 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So much so that you would rather show misleading year ranges rather than accurate information? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No one's suggestions for how to display youth career won't lead to misleading year ranges. The problem is it would take a lot of effort to add this to the prose in every article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Can you please explain how it's important? I already explained above why it's barely notable. --SuperJew (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: As explained, removing the information from the infobox doesn't necessitate adding prose - the infobox is meant to reflect in short what is written in the page. Ergo: anything in the infobox should appear sourced in prose on the page. --SuperJew (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@SuperJew: - Fair enough. Even though 'anything in the infobox should appear sourced in prose on the page' as you say, this it not the case and reflects the problem we have with so many football biographies being one-line stubs. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would, however, still feel uncomfortable removing it from the infobox in one line stubs and not adding it to the prose as it is still useful information to have even if it isn't 'infobox-worthy' as many are suggesting. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying Jadon Sancho (for example) playing as a youth at Man City, leaving to go to Dortmund, then (if it happens) returning to Man Utd isn't all worth covering in the infobox? Giant Snowman 20:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That specifically could be an interesting trivia point, which should definitely be covered in the prose. But I don't think it is necessary for the infobox. Also, even if it is worth covering in the infobox, it is an exception while the vast majority of players have not interesting or notable youth. --SuperJew (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Says who? Giant Snowman 09:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Says I. And other people commenting here. This is a discussion to get consensus based on people's opinions. --SuperJew (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So, is it fair to say that consensus is towards Option 7? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. We can't start claiming consensus to remove what our readers have grown to expect to appear in the infobox, just on a small majority within a tiny group of participants. It's a step too far. Even if it was general opinion that players' youth careers were basically irrelevant, which I see no evidence of in the real world. For what it's worth, I initially liked option 3, but there's too little likelihood of one person's common sense being the same as the next person's. So personally, I'd go with option 5, merging. There's still too much room for argument, but at least it'd remove the need to guess when youth career ends and senior career begins. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

By merging, ergo 5, would you put 0 (0) for every youth club? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would you put stats for youth teams? Struway2 (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In the sense that, how would you indicate a youth team being such? How would you format the senior career section? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't indicate a youth team being such. That's what the youth career/senior career divide does. If they were merged, then there would be no divide. What am I missing? Struway2 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you would do, and you are telling me what you don't want to do. I just want to be clear on the formatting. You would remove the "Youth career" section from the infobox, and rename Senior career? Let's say a player plays 3 games for club A, then plays 1 year for the youth setup of club B, then plays senior for club C. How would you indicate that? As A 3 (0); B; C 0 (0)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not very bright. I need things formulated clearly or I'll miss the point. I'd format each row as appropriate: senior competitions gets stats, youth competitions don't. So yes, I'd format your example just as per your suggestion. Struway2 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the usefulness in adding the youth clubs (without stats, that is) alongside the senior clubs. Often times, we don't know stats for certain leagues (for example, the Jordanian Pro League). Ergo, a row without stats doesn't necessarily mean that it's a youth team. I don't see the harm in just keeping senior clubs in the infobox; any relevant and notable youth experiences can be described in prose in the body of the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry again for lack of concentration, real life has to take priority ATM. If I were singlehandedly deciding how to implement ths option, which I'm not, once the player has played in a senior competition, I would display zeroes for any clubs after that where the player didn't play in a senior competition for that team. Struway2 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I vote option 1. Doesn't make sense to have to go from youth years to senior years to track where player has gone.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my God Nehme, please stop trying to claim consensus when there clearly isn't any! Giant Snowman 20:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on holding an RfC? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Spaces in headings

@BRICK93:, why didn't you establish consensus before making these sweeping changes? @Walter Görlitz:, if you say the spacing is "correct" why doesn't the Manual of Style reflect that (MOS:HEADINGS)? I welcome evidence that proves the spaces are correct. But changing all the templates when this has not been discussed and most of our articles look different does not make much sense. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

First, adding the correct spacing is not a sweeping change. Second, WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE. It does. In fact, I can show you. Go to any talk page. Click on the add topic link. Add a title with no spaces and a few words in the body. Save. Look at the results. I'm amazed that more editors do not know the correct formatting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be the default, but that doesn't mean it's correct. Both ways work, neither is unintelligible. This is entirely a matter of personal preference, and no one needs to go out of their way to change it one way or the other. Edits that change nothing other than the spacing in section headers should be discouraged, however. – Pee Jay 06:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Reggio Audace F.C. players

The club has had three names throughout its history:

A.C. Reggiana: until July 2005
A.C. Reggiana 1919: from July 2005 to July 2018; from July 2020 to present
Reggio Audace F.C.: from July 2018 to July 2020

I have already created Category:A.C. Reggiana 1919 players and Category:A.C. Reggiana players, all we need to do now is recategorize the 300-odd players in Category:Reggio Audace F.C. players based on the club's name when they played. (e.g. Beniamino Abate --> A.C. Reggiana players, as he played between 1997 and 2000). I've already started the process, if anyone else could help me it would be highly appreciated! Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

There should be one category for the club, not different categories for each name change. Giant Snowman 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym disagrees. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in few different disscusions. Moving player X who played for a team called Y to a category for a team called Z is incorrect as it's anachronistic. An easy example is looking at the Category:Minneapolis Lakers. Gonnym (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

No, this is well established standard - we change the category name if/when the team changes name. Giant Snowman 16:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Snowman is correct. We don't have a separate category for players who played for Stevenage when they were called Stevenage Borough, or three categories for Livingston players. Number 5 7 16:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Pinging as he might not have the project under his watchlist. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Creating anachronistic categories in the past, is not a good reason to continue doing so once it was pointed out. --Gonnym (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you'll have to explain that in clearer English for me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"Just because you have created categories whose titles 'belong to a period other than that being portrayed' in the past, doesn't mean we should continue to do so in the present". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, that makes no sense to me. The long-established standard is clear - ONE category for players, regardless of any club name changes. Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Pinging once again. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Having a new/separate category when a club is renamed is unhelpful and unnecessary. Tom Burke played for the club that is today called Manchester United, so his categorisation as such should not be a problem. Number 5 7 22:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as i know, we have Category:A.C. Cesena players and Category:Cesena F.C. players because the hereditary is disputed. While A.C. Reggiana 1919/A.C. Reggiana / Reggio Audace F.C. is consider as the same team (or Parma AC/Parma FC and Parma Calcio, etc).

More bizarre example is Cosenza Calcio and Cosenza Calcio 1914 and Cosenza F.C.. Matthew hk (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season formatting

I have been asked to begin a discussion as after the following edit summary was left on the article in the title."the reason is that none of the previous articles in this series are like this and much of the formatting is ridiculous - please discuss this on the talk page before introducing a drastically different style to this series of articles". This is in relation to using the standard template and style for football season articles as can be seen here along with the given edit summary. No other football season article that I know of ( and if they do they are in the significant minority) uses Wikitables anymore to record match results. It seems antediluvian not to use this for Manchester United seasons moving forwards. The benefits are numerous. It will easily help improve accessibility to editing the article by more users as the template is significantly simpler to edit. The template contains more information and the display of the information is at the reader's discretion, compared to the Wikitables which are not collapsible, and contain limited information in comparison. Using the format that is used on other season articles is good for consistency across articles and Manchester United season articles should not be viewed in isolation from other club season articles. Viewing each League clubs seasons in isolation belies the interconnected nature of the seasons with the other teams. The teams are not in isolation or silos from each other. As such the Manchester united seasons moving forward should embrace the format of the season articles for nigh on every other team, moving forwards. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer to use the collapsible football box because of consistency, but the MoS says to avoid collapsible stuff, so a wiki table is better for consistency. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: That is contradictory. It appears as if the consensus across nigh on all football season articles is to use the collapsable template. I could list them but I don't want to be seen to be unnecessarily making a point or trying to flog a dead horse with the volume of examples I could bring. Also If it is your personal preference why is it? Don't be scared to have an opinion which goes against the MOS. The MOS is only a guide and if consensus is to use the collapsible template on football articles then that is a consensus for those articles the MOS doesn't override. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not so much a personal preference, more an OCD-esque desire for consistency. There is only consensus for a collapsible football box amongst the handful of editors who create these pages, and not the wiki project in general. The tables are used as they are better for accessibility. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I lost my point halfway through my original reply (which I've now struck). I meant to say "I prefer to use the collapsible football box because of consistency, but the MoS says to avoid collapsible stuff. Given previous season articles use wiki tables, they are better here anyway for consistency." Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually suggested having this discussion on the article talk page, not here, but okay. My opinion on using the {{footballbox collapsible}} template to list results in these articles is that it is far too cumbersome for the task. There is way too much whitespace in that template, and it includes a lot of information not needed in the article. These articles are supposed to be summaries of each team's season, so listing opposition goalscorers is surplus to requirements; that's without even mentioning the fact that some people have decided that the "goals1" and "goals2" parameters are also a sensible place to include mentions of bookings and sendings-off. I don't know if anyone here has a subscription to this website, but in their lists of each team's fixtures in a season, Soccerassociation.com (which I and my colleagues use on a regular basis for football stats purposes) lists only the goals scored by that team. I would also argue that the template is not significantly easier to edit than the wikitable, and any improvement in ease of use is negated by the fact that it is not fit for purpose. The only benefit I can see to the template is the addition of the referee info, which I tried to add to the Man Utd articles a couple of years ago, but was shouted down. I notice you've only argued in favour of using the template for results, but you've not given any reasoning for the change in section order (why should the squad list come before the lists of matches?), the addition of colours to the column headers in the transfer tables (not appropriate per WP:ACCESS, and it masks the addition of the - in my opinion unnecessary - column sorting buttons), the addition of a squad number column in the transfer tables (this is absolutely not necessary), the addition of the "Overview" table (the only competition that has a WDL record for the whole season is the league, so not sure why it's necessary for the others, especially the straight knockouts like the FA Cup and EFL Cup), or the addition of the "Results by matchday" table (this has been rejected multiple times by this WikiProject). Would you care to offer explanations for those? – Pee Jay 22:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you feel the template is not fit for purpose please feel free to start a discussion where improvements to the template can be suggested and discussed. It does though seem that the article in question is out of line with nigh on every other Season article. As for ease of editing; the template does not require knowledge or understanding of the way in which wiki templates are written. Which can and in some cases is complex. The templates by contrast are simple to use. It is clear that WP:access is not applicable here as football season articles across virtually every country which has clubs with season articles use the collapsible template. It is clear current consensus (at the time of writing) for football-related results is to use the collapsible template, demonstrating are wide used consensus across the board for this type of article. Regarding the point on section order et al. that falls squarely in article consistency across season articles for all clubs in the Premier League. It is simple. For consistency across all clubs season articles, the templates should be used and the ordering of the articles et al should be the same as far as possible for each team. I invite you to look at the other articles for English teams and then look at how radically in the doldrums the Manchester United season article proposes to remain. In short, the rest of the editing on Wikipedia regarding this subject matter has moved to use a consistent format for season articles in England and likely across the board. It is time the last hold out fell in line with the overwhelming consensus of the wider football season articles. The article in question is an anachronism, belonging with the previous consensus and not the current one. Sparkle1 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing improvements to the template because we already have a suitable alternative, which is the wikitables that the Man Utd season articles already use. Also, I didn't say it wasn't fit for any purpose, I just don't think it's fit for this purpose. Anyway, what on earth makes you think WP:ACCESS doesn't apply here? Yes, lots of other articles have ignored it, but even a thousand wrongs don't make a right. You have failed to establish why it is this format that should be accepted as the standard for everyone to follow - I've given reasons why the format I prefer is better, but you're essentially just relying on an argumentum ad populum. If the format you suggest were truly better, you and all those who use it would be able to provide compelling reasons for everyone else to use it, but when the only argument is "but muh consistency!" you're ignoring the quite obvious fact that your format has simply managed to worm its way in without anyone actually stopping to think whether or not it's better. – Pee Jay 14:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay on this one. The collapsible football box template is counter to WP:ACCESSIBILITY because it acts as a barrier to information by hiding it away and also includes information that is, quite frankly, pointless within the season articles. No-one looking at the Manchester United article is looking to find out which Norwich City player - or any other club for that matter - was booked in the 47th minute of a league game. Including that sort of detail, I'm pretty sure breaks WP:NOTSTATS and if that particular booking (or opposition goal or whatever) is significant enough it can be included in the article prose. You've also got to consider MOS:LIST when putting together lists of results and the football box doesn't meet that. A table does.

I should say as well, I brought this up before and there was no consensus to change the Manual of Style from a table to the football box template. See that discussion here. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree with PeeJay and Stevie Fae here, I can't say I'm a fan of the collapsible format. It's also far too simplistic to say that we should be using the collapsible style because most other people do. The majority of season articles are created by a limited set of users, so they will naturally use one style throughout. 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season was promoted at an FAC less than three months ago using the wikitable format, so I can't see why it's not acceptable. Kosack (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Me too. The 2020–21 Birmingham City F.C. season was also created (before we even knew what division they were going to be in this season) along the lines of the newly invented consensus layout, and contrary to the layout used for all previous articles in the series, which is similar to that at the Man Utd pages. I changed it to the layout used before, which is as close to MOS-compliant (including accessibility) as I could get them, but was reverted, and didn't feel up to arguing. Consistency of display within a series of articles over time is no less important than consistency of display across an individual season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Struway, what editors tend to forget is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a content management system for people to build their own fan site - complete with a national flag beside every player and a guess at their transfer fee. Sometimes I feel so deflated by it all. JMHamo (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Season articles need more scrutiny. Every year they are changed by one or two editors who fancy a new style and club season articles across the years end up looking like a random hodge podge of styles.--Echetus Xe 15:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's like fighting against the tide though. Many new editors see these articles as an easy way to get involved and we can't blame most of them for going along with what they see most of; if I saw an overwhelming majority of articles using a certain format, I would probably assume there was a consensus to use that format too. What I do blame them for is failing to actually think about what it is they're doing and whether or not the format they're using is actually superior, and then adding things to the other format that help it fall foul of WP:NOTSTATS even further. – Pee Jay 06:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I accept it and try to change the older articles to suit if it genuinely is an improvement and isn't that much effort. The points totals in the infobox have been removed this year though and I'm sure they were only put in a couple of years ago so that means mass reverting what I did back then to conform with the standard at the time!--Echetus Xe 08:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

People were putting points totals in the infobox? How interesting, that never would have occurred to me. I do think that if a team is knocked out of a tournament in the group stage, maybe we should put their final position in the infobox, but not the points. – Pee Jay 09:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Scope of club season articles

Hi everyone, I just wanted to guage opinion on what exactly is appropriate content for club season articles. My take, for what it's worth, is that the primary focus of the article should be the club's first team, but reasonably brief sections on the club's other teams (e.g. reserves, development team, women's team, under-23s, etc.) are perfectly valid if the relevent information is readily available. It is after all a club season article, and not a team season article.

My reason for asking is due to @Dougal18 (pinged to invite comment) having removed the results of the women's team from 2019–20 Bristol Rovers F.C. season. I've included reserve team and women's team results in club season articles before, so it would be useful to see if there is a consensus on whether this is reasonable content for this type of article. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 15:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The reason that your results were removed is because that season covers the men's senior team. For the women's results you would have to create 2019–20 Bristol Rovers W.F.C. season, while reserve team seasons aren't considered notable enough to have there own season articles. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just the first team should be included. Kante4 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And just the men's first team at that. If the women's team is notable, they should have an article of their own. – Pee Jay 17:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed the women's results for the reasons stated by REDMAN 2019. Dougal18 (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But the titles of these articles follow the naming convention 9998–99 Example F.C. season, i.e. they are a decription of the Football Club's season (the club being the overall organisation encompasing all the teams representing it), that means that any aspect of the club that is worthy of mention on Example F.C. can also legitimately be included in the season article. Saying that only the first team should be included goes against the policy that "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent". I've spent hours trawling Victorian newspapers for reserve team league tables and results to improve some of the 19th-century club season articles precisely because there is more to a club than its first team and including this information gives a fuller view of life at the club at that particular time. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 12:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled before it began

Should 2020 Lebanese Elite and Challenge Cup be deleted? The tournament was postponed three times, before it was officially cancelled today (with no matches having been played) due to COVID-19 preventive measures. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Normally I'd suggest redirecting to the main article. However that's a bit tricky this year, because it was the Lebanese Elite Cup and Lebanese Challenge Cup merged into one competition for this year only. I would delete it, and redirect 2020 Lebanese Elite Cup and 2020 Lebanese Challenge Cup (which currently redirect to this article) to the main articles for those competitions instead. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't think it's notable, maybe should be redirected to Lebanese Elite and Challenge Cup or similar article (where you can mention that 2020 cup was cancelled)- that's happened for lots of other cancelled sports articles. Talking of which, I don't think many of the competitions in Category:Association football events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic are notable- if the events started, they'll be in a different category for postponed/curtailed/curtailed and voided events. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  - That's the problem in this case though - Lebanese Elite and Challenge Cup is just a redirect to this article because the competition didn't exist previously, it's a merging of the other two just for this year due to COVID. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    - In any case, you wouldn't keep the article itself. Either it gets redirected, or deleted, correct? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to 2020 in Lebanese football (or similar overview article). Giant Snowman 21:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Transfer tables

I was attempting to get 2020–21 Crawley Town F.C. season to appear more MoS-compliant, changing the football boxes to wikitables as suggested above, but what is an appropriate way to display transfers on a club season article. The table format on this article is common amongst articles of this kind but many editors avoid using a format like this and I would like to know what is an appropriate format. I have attached a version of the table below:

Date	Position	Nationality	Name	From	Fee	Ref.
1 January 1970	CF		Joe Bloggs	Example United	Undisclosed

The MoS uses a similar format but without the coloured headings, but the majority of GAs use a simpler format, often omitting all flags icons and sometimes also the position field, such as in 2013–14 York City F.C. season. I have seen other formats used, with 2016–17 Borussia Dortmund season having columns I feel are clearly irrelevant, such as squad number and EU. Given the recent discussion over the display of match results in these articles, I would like to hear what other editors feel is an appropriate layout for these tables. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to reduce the font size, and the colour in the column headers is just for decoration, so I would bin that off straight away too. I don't think the "Nationality" column is necessarily needed either, but I'm sure there's an MOS guideline that tells me I'm wrong. Lastly, I would say you don't need a flag for the country of the club the player is moving to/from if it's the same country as the club which is the subject of the article. – Pee Jay 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to include a position column in the table, I would say the positions should only be either GK, DF, MF or FW. Specific playing positions in season articles often cases of WP:OR. A perfect example of this is Samuel Matthews. The season article lists him as an AM, but there is no sourcing in the article or the player article that verifies this. The sources in the player article simply refer to him as a midfielder. This is another practice that needs to be stopped. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair point, It's hard to reference and given the fact that players can often play multiple positions within a category, I'll change it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd even say players often play multiple positions in general (left-backs who can play as side midfielders, attacking midfielders who can play as a forward, wingers). I think as time goes by, the positions in general are getting less relevant apart from goalkeepers and outfield players. --SuperJew (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Players still occupy a general area of the pitch though, so I don't think it's ever going to get quite as generic as "you're either a goalkeeper or an outfield player, simples". Either way, the position should be sourced, and most club squad lists will be split into goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and forwards. – Pee Jay 09:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's tricky for some genuine utility players, though. Stuart Dallas, for example, played RB, LB, LM, RM and CM for Leeds this season... Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but what does his club say he is in their squad list? – Pee Jay 13:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay: Winger. No, hang on, full back. No, hang on , midfielder. Er, yeah. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, defender (also here). – Pee Jay 11:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I think LTFC 95's suggestion of using only GK/DF/MF/FW is the simplest option since as we've noted players will play multiple positions. Then in a case like Stuart Dallas, you can always just include two and put DF/MF. Would seem like a simple solution in my view. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I would use Previous/Subsequent club as a column header. A lot of transfers happen after a player's contract has ended or when they are a free agent so technically he has been bought/sold from one club to another. Also, colours in the top row of the table is a no, it's against MOS:COLOUR and MOS:TABLES. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I previously removed the coloured row at the top and have changed the header from From/To to Previous/Subsequent club. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with using "From club" and "To club" in the headers. Takes up less space and is pretty common parlance. – Pee Jay 15:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way but given the amount of players signed as free agents, it probably makes slightly more sense, and the clubs used in that column often take up more space than the title. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

[1] "Ludogorets AD, Private Company Register".

[2] "BG Clubs".

[3] "Sportal, Bulgarian Sport Website".

[4] "Soccerway".

[5] "Transfermarket".

[6] "Sofascore".

[7] "UEFA Clubs".

[8] ttps://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2019/10/19/leeds-united-fans-react-to-pablo-hernandez-turning-out-for-u23s/

[9] "Brilliant Bayern smash Barcelona to reach semis". BBC.com. 14 August 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]