Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 137

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 130←Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140

Notability of individual games

I see on the project page that we have notability guidelines for players, clubs and leagues, but we don't have one for individual matches. The conventions seems to be more or less that finals (including play-offs) are notable, as are various other games if they're particularly dramatic, or high-scoring - those entries at Category:Football League First Division matches and the slightly higher number of games at Category:Premier League matches (WP:RECENTISM anyone?). I've been wondering about covering the 2-2 draw between Coventry and Bristol City in 1977, which finished 15 minutes late and saved both clubs at the expense of Sunderland. It gets lots of coverage in sources,[1][2][3] it may have led to the convention that all games start simultaneously at the end of the season, and it has also fuelled a somewhat bizarre long-distance rivalry between Coventry and Sunderland fans that persists to this day. Don't want to waste my time if it will breach notability guidelines though!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think just go with WP:GNG since we don't really have one for individual matches. As long as its not falling foul of RECENTISM and can show long term notability, I don't see a problem. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, GNG is the key here - is there significant coverage of the match, beyond match reports or contemporaneous 'oh wow look at X that happened in the game' news fluff? GiantSnowman 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the advice. I'll see if I can find sources for the longer-term impact, and take it from there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
There's a bit of coverage on [4] too (clipped from Newspapers.com article, so should be freely viewable now). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the example game is the notability is not so much the match itself, but the outcomes. I would personally feel it probably warrants mentioning on the respective football club pages, and almost certainly on the season pages for the division and clubs respective pages. Whether it passes GNG beyond that is debateable.
Separately, yes Recentism is an issue across WikiProject:Football. Everyone thinks the surprise game of the season will remain immortalised in the memory of every fan. The reality instead being it's usually a footnote after less than a decade. Koncorde (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Context of the game is also important (and maybe even context in retrospect, such as 1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match, given the Israel–Lebanon relations). There should not be any guideline honestly, as a match can be notable for different reasons (the scoreline, the outcome, political variables, first/last match of a team, etc.); we should only be using WP:GNG. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Two articles, same guy

These articles (bulleted below), with ever-so-slightly different titles, are, I’m 99.9999% certain, about the same person. Those familiar here with the football topic probably know what to do, so I will leave it in your capable hands.

Thank you for your attention! Hamamelis (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Both articles use [5]- the same source- and both refer to him having the same brother. So it seems certain that they're the same person, one article should be merged into the other. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I combined them at the name with the apostrophe and re-directed the other one to it RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

1970 FIFA World Cup bids

According to FIFA World Cup hosts#1970 FIFA World Cup, Australia was a bidding country for the 1970 tournament. I can't see any mention of this in the Australian media at the time. Any idea where this might have come from? Hack (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I went through page history and most of the withdrawn/striken bids are unsourced IP edits. They were questioned, removed and re-added at least once, but I suspect more. --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
This does seem dubious. I can find three mentions of the Mexico-Argentina vote: FIFA (archive), Engand Football Online and in this summary. No mention of any other bidders.
The addition countries were added with this edit without source or edit summary. A few other edits from around then (history) might need checked (e.g. from this IP). —  Jts1882 | talk  12:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably worth reverting again unless someone can come up with a reliable source. These WC article seem to attract unhelpful edits. Hack (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Racing Murcia FC picture

Hello, I need a bit of help. I am not experienced with adding pictures under fair use on Wikipedia. Could someone please get a club logo for Racing Murcia FC? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How should these articles be named

I know that the League name should not be in the title of the article. The articles in questions are:

I don't really think any qualifies as primary name. The USL team gets the most page views (~15 per day) While the others combine for about 5 per day. So none of the three is really notable. I would say that Boston Bolts should be turned into a DAB page, but what should the two soccer/football teams be renamed to? In the past with teams of the same name, it was said to put the country in brackets, but both these teams are from the same country, same city, and unrelated to each other. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not have the league name in the title? Another option is perhaps years? --SuperJew (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Year of formation is typically used in the UK (e.g. Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891); in North America it seems to be years in existence, as they are shorter (e.g. Montreal Impact (1992–2011)). I suggest having the Boston Bolts moved to Boston Bolts (1988–1990) and turning the base-page into a disambiguation page. GiantSnowman 11:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I moved the defunct team as you recommended to Boston Bolts (1988–1990) and turned Boston Bolts into a DAB page. Do I leave Boston Bolts (USL) as is? I'm a little more unsure of that article name. The club as a whole was founded in 1986, but the pro team was founded and began play in 2016. RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Also the Rochester Lancers. I don't feel like it owns WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It gets like 5-15 page views per day, barely more than the others at Rochester Lancers (disambiguation) and some of those views may come from wanting to get to the others. I feel like Rochester Lancers (disambiguation) should be moved to Rochester Lancers, and then that article gets renamed , but what should that be renamed to? Rochester Lancers (2015–present)? Rochester Lancers (NPSL) already exists and redirects to the page, so I'd need to do a RM if that's the better title right? RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, for the Lancers please use RM. GiantSnowman 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

yyyy in association football

Ok what is the factor in the yyyy in association football as Nyu5765 thinks that we should have the second tier onwards on the 2020 in association football and 2021 in association football pages. This feels like it might be over detail on that year as you really only need the top division and cup competitions to summarize that nation's club competitions. HawkAussie (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Second-tier competitions for any nation opens up a can of worms we don't need to open. – PeeJay 12:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Why not simply expand to every league?! </sarcasm> GiantSnowman 12:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No, we don't need an article with every league in existence, contrary to what this user has said on their talkpage. Second tiers and below are not needed, and neither are youth competitions, which they also mentioned on their talkpage. The number of people searching for second division results for most leagues in the world will be almost 0. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
You missed the sarcasm tag, I see. – PeeJay 15:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The "this user" in my previous comment was referring to Nyu5765 and comments on their talkpage about it. Apologies if that was not clear. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Anything below the top-tier is clearly not needed. Kante4 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Completely ignores this conversation it seems like and reverts once again officialy going into 3RR territory now. HawkAussie (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I've issued a final warning and will block them if they revert on the articles again (please ping me if this happens). Cheers, Number 57 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of common names or official names of stadiums

Hi, user Life200BC and I had a difference of opinion about use of stadium names in articles about leagues or seasons which we didn't manage to solve between us. I claim that we should use the common names (which may be the sponsored commercial names in some cases) in use by the media as that is how they are used in the sources we base the articles on and that is how the average user knows them. Life200BC claims we should use the official names as per WP:PROMO. You can see the expanded discussion here on my user page. Since we didn't reach an agreement, I brought it here to get more opinions and to reach a consensus (even though Life200BC seems against this way and only wishes his edits to be reinstated). Thanks, --SuperJew (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The name of this discussion is misleading. There is no way to determine a common name without it being personal research or experience. Given this I believe given there is no way to determine a common name per the previous discussion on this topic (Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Consensus) . Yes i know that the article refers to titles but so does WP:COMMONNAME. Further supported my argument is WP:PROMO as using commercial names unnescarily promotes a company. Life200BC (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
As I already said, we gather the common name by the use of the media on which we source our articles. --SuperJew (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Consensus is that we use the non-sponsored name where there is one, and as far as I'm aware, that applies to all related articles. As the dispute seems to centre on whether sponsored names should be used in league season articles (even if the stadium article is located at a non-sponsored title), I don't think they should (the Premier League article series does not, for example). Number 57 09:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@SuperJew: As I have said before on your talk page different sources use different terminology. This is an example from the NRL the ABC refers to Lang park as such while Nine refers to it as suncorp stadium. [1][2] What I'm saying is there is no defintive common name therefore as per previous concencus and WP:PROMO we should use the official name of the stadiums. Life200BC (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tonight Brisbane will host the world's largest sporting event since COVID-19". www.abc.net.au. 2020-11-17. Retrieved 2020-11-25.
  2. ^ "Suncorp at full capacity for Origin decider". wwos.nine.com.au. Retrieved 2020-11-25.
@Life200BC: Why are you bringing an example from the NRL (different league and different sport) if we are discussing the A-League? --SuperJew (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that if there's no consensus on sponsor or non sponsor name, we should use the non-sponsor name. If all sources refer to something by sponsor name e.g. Ricoh Arena, then we should use sponsor name. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@SuperJew: I used an example from the NRL as the A-league uses the same stadiums and it's harder to find news articles about the A-league given their season was like 10 months ago, so I used the NRL which was a weed ago. Life200BC (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The official name of the stadium is actually "Brisbane Stadium (Lang Park)". In terms of non-sponsored names, Lang Park is generally used for local sport and Brisbane Stadium for international football.[6] Hack (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that you do what Life200BC says.

The Savannah Way (talk E: tsw2996@gmail.com Reddit: u/tsw2996 OSM: stuarthwy87 07:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

KingFut

Is KingFut notable, potentially? I'm finding it hard to find decent third-party sources but, then again, this seems to be the norm with many football websites. Even Soccerway doesn't have enough coverage to have an article despite being a great website. Spiderone 19:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the sources in that article are published by the subject itself. The other two only detail deals that they have entered into, rather than establishing the notability of the site. – PeeJay 01:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I would say no. GiantSnowman 14:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox wrapping tweak

Please see Template talk:Infobox football biography#Infobox wrapping tweak for a proposed infobox style tweak. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Josh March

Soccerway has Josh March scoring 19 goals in 22 games for Leamington in 2019–20; multiple other sources say he had 24 in 27 for the season. Obviously he therefore has 5 in 5 in a Cup competition that SW doesn't report on. Any clues? GiantSnowman 16:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The only other competition listed here is the Birmingham Senior Cup, but Leamington only played three games in that?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
It was three FA Cup qualifying games (and two goals by my count) - 1 and 2 and 3 - which SW clearly missed/don't go down that far. Thanks for that initial season link! GiantSnowman 16:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
@User:GiantSnowman there seems to be a typo in the Career Stats table Other column. It says 3/5, but the note saya "One appearance and three goals in the FA Trophy; two appearances and three goals in the Birmingham Senior Cup" which is 3/6. Is the note wrong 3/5 or the numbers 3/6? RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted, correct, thanks. GiantSnowman 17:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Rabbi Matondo

An editor has taken to insisting on Welsh being included in the opening line because of a YouTube video in which he describes himself as such. As I understand it, the consensus on players who play for X and represent Y is to avoid listing a nationality in the opening sentence. I've pointed this out to the user, but they are reverting now with summaries such as "this is more fun x". I can't perform anymore reverts now as I would be in breach of 3RR, if someone else can take a look at the article and see what they think. Cheers. Kosack (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Given that he was born in England to parents from DR Congo, and was eligible to represent three national teams, I would just omit the nationality in the lede, and add a sentence such as "Born in England to parents from DR Congo, Matondo moved to Wales at an early age. He was eligible to represent England, DR Congo, and Wales internationally, and chose to represent Wales at both youth and senior levels". Or something like that. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the issue here – he grew up in Wales, so it's not like he has only adopted Welsh nationality for the purposes of playing for the national team (I don't think there has ever been an issue with describing Robert Earnshaw, born in Zambia, as Welsh). I think careful wording is only required when a player plays for a country that they weren't born or grew up in (e.g. Eduardo da Silva). And, while I am sure this is not the case here, we should also be aware of potential of inadvertently endorsing the idea that someone not born in a country cannot be described as having that nationality. Number 57 17:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I prefer keeping Welsh out of the lead since it's not as straight forward as that. He did represent England as a youth international as well.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with N57 - this is more akin to Raheem Sterling (moved to country he represented at international level at a young age). GiantSnowman 19:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that Matondo was born in England, represented England at youth level, then switched to Wales. Sterling was born in Jamaica, moved to England, and always represented England (never Jamaica at any level). Nehme1499 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Also, Sterling seems not to have "English" in the lede anyway). Nehme1499 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
He did last time I checked! GiantSnowman 20:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"confed_cup" parameter in Template:Infobox_football_league

Could I clarify on what grounds exactly we populate this field? The Premier League article lists the cups for which teams can qualify by virtue of their league position, which is fair enough, but I noticed that Tercera División has a value of "UEFA Europa League (via winning Copa del Rey)", which is technically correct but highly implausible. On that basis we could put the Europa League in the infobox for the Essex Senior League on the grounds that its clubs compete in the FA Cup and therefore one of them could theoretically win it and qualify for Europe. The template documentation just defines the field as "Names of international cups" which isn't very helpful....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

FPLs only outwith top national divisions IMO. Crowsus (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

B, II, or Reserves

Hello, I have a question.
I would like to know what the correct way to write the name of the second team of a professional football club is. This question is brought to my attention, because I do not know whether it is correct to write Paris Saint-Germain II, Paris Saint-Germain B, or Paris Saint-Germain Reserves, for example. Maybe I did not look very well, but I have not found any clarification on this anywhere.
My personal belief is that we should write "Paris Saint-Germain B", but I would like to hear other opinions, establish consensus, and know if a similar question has already been asked in the past.
Oh, and secondly, where should we link the second team to? I understand that if there is only one page for a football club, for example, "Saint-Étienne B" would be linked to the main article for Saint-Étienne. But if there is a team where there is a seperate page for the youth academy, such as PSG, should we link the second team to the main article for the club or the youth team article for the club? Just trying to get some clarification.
Thank you to the person that answers this. I would please appreciate if you could ping me, though. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: What does the club/league/sources say? Normally it's B or II, never Reserves. GiantSnowman 07:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The FFF site suffixes the pro reserves with 2. I haven't checked all the club sites, but from what I can see there is no uniform way to depict them:
  • Auxerre calls them both CN2 and B but bounces straight to the FFF site for tables etc
  • Lens describes the team as 'Pro2' but bounces straight to the FFF site for tables etc
  • Metz calls them simply Equipe réserve and doesn't use any suffix in the tables
  • Caen describes the team as 'Pro 2' and doesn't use any suffix in the tables
  • Lorient calls them L'équipe réserve but bounces straight to the FFF site for tables etc
  • Guingamp calls them 'National 2' and uses the suffix 2 in tables etc
  • Reims calls them 'National 2' and doesn't use any suffix in the tables
...so frankly, who knows, though we should perhaps favour the federation's choice. I should add that I feel playing at Championnat National 2 level (4th tier, the highest where it's regionalised) could justify creating separate articles for these reserve teams to record their separate history etc since the separate clubs at that level also have them, but that wouldn't solve the present issue of how to title them. Crowsus (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You go with whatever the team names them. Some teams will call them B, others II, others a unique name. For example in North America, there is LA Galaxy II, Atlanta United 2, Orlando City B, Portland Timbers U23s, Real Monarchs (B team of Real Salt Lake), North Texas SC (B team of FC Dallas). Even Ottawa Fury FC Academy and has been used. Another type of example is Real Madrid Castilla. So essentially, the correct term is whatever the team uses, whether is be B, II, 2,a suffix, or a different name entirely RedPatchBoy (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: @Crowsus: @GiantSnowman: Thanks to you all for the clarification! Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

When is a player considered "professional"?

Hello, I have a question about football articles on Wikipedia. Usually, in the opening paragraph, the standard phrase goes like this: "Tim Template (born 33 Decebruary 3333) is a Templatonian professional footballer who plays as a forward for Premier League club Templatonia FC." (This is a template/example).
My question is, how do we define the "professional" in that sentence? Do we say that a player is professional when he plays for a club in a fully professional league, or when he is being paid by a club for playing football as a job? Please read the discussion I had with Robby.is.on about this subject (by clicking here).
By the way, please do not forget to ping my username. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: - is that their only job? That is the basis definition of professional that you do it for your sole source of income. If you play for a team in a WP:FPL, the answer should be yes... GiantSnowman 07:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The basic definition of professionalism is being paid to do the job. As opposed to amateur. --SuperJew (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
But in football, we usually differentiate between fully-professional and semi-professional. Like GS, I would suggest 'professional' is only used for people playing for fully-professional clubs (unless they are known not to be like Dave Rainford). Number 57 11:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Well (as usual) the question is if we are writing these articles for the average WP:FOOTY editor who is more-or-less familiar with this differentiation or if we are writing them for the average fan/reader who isn't. --SuperJew (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I can only really speak for the UK, but I'm pretty sure most people would understand that 'professional footballer' is shorthand for someone who does football as a full time job, whereas someone who plays for a non-fully pro club in non-league and gets paid would be described as semi-professional or part-time. Number 57 11:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion between Paul and me arose over Mathias Pogba. He has a Wikipedia article because he has played football professionally. His career seems to have seen somewhat of a downturn in recent years. As late as 2017, he played in the Eredivisie. After being out of contract for a while he landed at Tours in the Championnat National in 2018, featuring sparingly. Now, at age 30 and after two spells in the Spanish fourth-tier (Tercera División), he has ended up at non-professional club Racing Murcia, also of the Tercera División.
My main point of argument is that https://www.marca.com/futbol/mas-futbol/2020/08/07/5f2d6a7f46163f3cad8b45f6.html reads to me like there's money involved and that Pogba is still making a living off of it. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: @Number 57: @SuperJew: @GiantSnowman: From what I can understand, we should call players professional when they are footballers full-time and are being paid, correct? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a player plays for:
  1. A club in a fully professional league, or
  2. A fully-professional club, or
  3. A non-fully pro club, but is being paid a pro salary
then he should have the wording "professional". For example, Hassan Maatouk plays for Al Ansar FC (not pro), in the Lebanese Premier League (not pro), but is paid $300,000 a year (so pro). Nehme1499 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Nehme1499's summing up. Number 57 15:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. in international football

Hi folks (ccing @Paul Vaurie: who edits PSG articles). Could some of you please have a look at Paris Saint-Germain F.C. in international football and say what you make of the recent edits? DroopyDoggy (talk · contribs) seems to have removed the whole existing article content and then started re-writing it. Removing the work of countless editors over the years without any prior discussion strikes me as quite disruptive. Also, most of the content added was referenced to an article by the unreliable Daily Mail. I have reverted the changes for now. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I presume you mean the unreliable Daily Mail? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Ouch, yes. Corrected. Robby.is.on (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like that article hasn't existed for 5 years (4 years, 363 days to be exact) and was a redirect until he started re-editing it yesterday. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: They turned the article into a redirect themselves in 2015. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Alright, I will take a look and try to improve the article if I have some spare time, but I am a bit busy. Thanks for the heads up, though! Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

👍 Sure. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a proper consensus please!?

Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 133#How to record delayed competitions from July and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 136#2019–20 Scottish Cup in Career statistics from October. I was only aware of the first discussion, started by me, which was a clear preference for 19-20 in the table. I've just spent half an hour amending tables for Hibs and Aberdeen based on that (removing a note added in most of all cases by User:A Well Fan) and adding in the summary that it was consensus to change it, only to then find the later discussion started by him which eventually seemed to settle on 20-21, so what I've been doing today is actually against the consensus as he knows it. I've had some minor disagreements in the past with AWF who works very hard on keeping Scottish stats updated and I've no wish to argue with him again when this is just a case of crossed wires - and in fairness to others, there was only two editors who were in both threads (User:Nehme1499 and User:ChrisTheDude), their viewpoint didn't change and there was 3 months between the posts so easy to forget it had been brought up before. Anyway, can we please get consensus one way or another so the tables are being updated consistently? FWIW, I'd still vote for it going in the 19-20 row and would counter User:GiantSnowman's valid point about Soccerbase recording these games under 20-21 with Soccerway having added them to the 19-20 lists, including for the new players e.g Kevin Nisbet here. Crowsus (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I still stand by my viewpoint: the 2019–20 Scottish Cup should be included in the 2019–20 season. As I proposed in the first discussion from July, I would advocate creating two rows (2019–20 and 2020–21). —'s across the board in 2019–20, except for the Scottish Cup stats, and the 2020–21 competitions go under 2020–21. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with that. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with the comments made above. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't think I took part in either previous discussion, but I'd also agree that stats for a 2019/20 competition have to belong in a 2019/20 row. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
If the competition is officially 2019-20, then that should be the proper row, as above. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue that nobody has adequately answered is what about players who signed for their club this season but playing in last season's competition? GiantSnowman 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Read my comment above regarding the "—'s across the board". Nehme1499 (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
See Craig Gordon for a good example of how this issue is addressed. I would say though that Soccerway should be used as the in-line citation rather than Soccerbase as they correctly list the matches under 2019–20. LTFC 95 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Which implies Gordon was a Hearts player during the 2019–20 season, which is not the case. GiantSnowman 20:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
No, it implies he was only eligible to play for them in the 2019–20 Scottish Cup, with an accompanying footnote to provide clarification for the reader. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The footnote is key here. 2019–20 is the correct place to put the information, but we also need to clarify that those competition rounds were played later than expected. SportingFlyer T·C 22:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should go in the 2019-20 row, and for a player like Gordon, my view is that I would put a dash on the League as well, rather than show Scottish Premiership and also I would attach the note to 2019-20 instead of the 1 in Games played. So it would look like

Agree with RedPatchBoy that the league for 19/20 should be removed as irrelevant and misleading. The location of the note would then be OK where it is, but I think the wording should be more explicit, to the effect of "Later rounds of the 2019/20 Scottish Cup were delayed until the 2020/21 season; players joining a club for the 2020/21 season were deemed eligible for that competition", only phrased better. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
This is more like it. The Gordon example as it stands is wholly inadequate I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 21:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is an improvement on the Gordon example. I assume we would keep the league in the table for a player such as Olly Lee, who was with Hearts for their first three league matches, but was then sent out on loan to Gillingham and missed the earlier stages of the Scottish Cup? Would only the footnote suffice? LTFC 95 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I've updated Lee's article. Any input on this would be welcome. Thank you. LTFC 95 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the footnote is quite clear enough, but I'm not sure what to suggest right now. Maybe something like "1 match played during the 2020–21 season due to the delay of the 2019–20 Scottish Cup as a result of the coronavirus pandemic."? SportingFlyer T·C 00:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I have added "as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in Scotland". LTFC 95 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Since I've been mentioned I'll add my opinion. Firstly I only updated the Aberdeen players the way I did as a number of them had already been updated putting the appearance in the 2002–21 season, so it was to ensure consistency throughout their squad. If the majority of people want to include it in the 2019–20 season that's fine. However the information in the note needs to be clear, this is the original one I had included on the Aberdeen player pages: "Includes one appearance in the 2019–20 Scottish Cup semi-final which was postponed until October 2020, due to Covid-19" For players such as Craig Gordon I don't know if it would be better to add in the note that he signed for the club after the 2019–20 season, especially when some players already have dashes in their table (some of which seem to mean different things in some cases, but that's another debate). @User:Crowsus, one or two edits, fair enough, but when you're changing that many of my edits if you thought I was wrong, a note on my talk page would have been appreciated. A Well Fan (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah fair enough, I was actually going to do that when I went looking for 'the' consensus to refer back to, but found the 2nd consensus before the 1st one so went back to here instead. Crowsus (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

ATK Mohun Bagan FC

There's kind of a mess going on over at ATK Mohun Bagan FC because of a weird merge proposal from September. Mohun Bagan and ATK (football club) merged over the summer to ATK Mohun Bagan FC, and there's been a big debate as to what to do with the articles. There have been several separate discussions on several different talk pages and at least two requests for administrator involvement. At least two move requests from Mohun Bagan to ATK Mohun Bagan have failed, in part because Mohun Bagan is a larger organisation than the football club.

However it seems clear from the sources provided at Talk:ATK Mohun Bagan FC that the new club should have its own article. There's now a redirect war ongoing. What's the best way procedurally to resolve this in the sense of how do we undo a merge discussion which arrived at an incorrect result? SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinion from a neutral point of view: There should be a seperate page called ATK Mohun Bagan as it is a new club formed as a result of merger between football section of Mohun Bagan and Atk football club. Lots of reliable sources verify this fact also. But whats happening is that some mohun bagan fans dont like the use of three letter ATK in front of Mohun bagan. They are also afraid that the clubs legacy will be gone. So they use socket accounts and cause edit wars. Hence, a new independent article called ATK Mohun Bagan should come and the history of both Mohun Bagan and ATK should be preserved in it.Poppified (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the new club should have a new article, as is standard practice. GiantSnowman 12:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There must be a separate article: This is a long unresolved issue. As per the general standards, the redirect from Mohun Bagan's page must be removed and there must be a article named ATK Mohun Bagan. The club is also 120 years old. So its history must be retained in the new club's page as well as ATK's. Shahoodu (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally when two clubs merge to form a new one, we would have three articles – ones on the two original clubs and one on the new club. I think we would only not have articles on both original clubs if (a) one of them was not notable or (b) the merger was more one merging into the other (in which case the main article has the history of the main club and a separate article is maintained for the club that merged in). Number 57 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've boldly restored the article from the redirect in order to prevent disruption of the other articles. Thanks to everyone so far. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest an uninvolved admin protects the article to prevent further disruption and an RFC is started for wider input and to formalise the position. GiantSnowman 14:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I have fully protected the article for three weeks. I have also closed the AfD on Mohun Bagan as delete and restored it as a redirect to the article on the original club (and fully protected it for a year to prevent another re-creation). Hopefully this goes some way to ending the disruption that seems to have been happening on this topic. Number 57 19:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Number 57 Can you protect Mohun Bagan A.C. article too. It also need a admin level protection for 1 or 3 weeks.Poppified (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Mohun Bagan is a club with 120 years of legacy. So its history must be retained in the article of new clubs article along with that of ATK.Thats th best possible way to solve this issue.Some Mohun Bagan fans are actually causing disruption because they are afraid of this same problem. So unless the problem is solved, the same issue will come again and again.Poppified (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • As explained, that's not how it works and is not an excuse for disruption. If it continues, blocks and more page protection will be the result. Number 57 15:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: The discussion is divided in 2 locations. One is here, another in the article talkpage. Can we combine them?  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Points deduction (league table)

Hi, how do you add in point deductions for teams in football league table? Editing Essex Senior League table for 2020-21 but can’t figure out how to add a 6pt deduction for southend manor. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platypus88 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're using the Sports WDL template, it would be something like: 

|adjust_points_SOU=-6

Hope that helps SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

National youth team result listings. Are they inherently notable?

I removed the PROD on these on the basis that they were potentially controversial deletions:

With that being said, I completely agree that they violate WP:NOTSTATS. What is the community consensus on these lists? Are they inherently notable? I've noticed that they even exist for teams much lower down the rankings than Thailand, for example:

Spiderone 20:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the standard for youth notability is higher than senior, they lack the inherent notability aspect. GiantSnowman 22:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
They're effectively lists, which I don't think really fall under WP:NOTSTATS, as lists are often stats by nature (articles on opinion polling for elections are often almost entirely a table of numbers, but I don't think anyone would consider deleting them). Also, reading NOTSTATS, it specifically refers to "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" (my emphasis), and the purpose here (results of a certain team) is clearly explained. I think these lists serve some purpose – readers could go through the numerous tournaments these results are taken from to follow a team's progress, but the list condenses it into a single place. Personally I'd be inclined to keep them as they're a potentially useful intersection. Number 57 22:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair enough. I think the only reason we don't see them more often is probably because they must take hours to make. Spiderone 12:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Weird squad infobox behavior

Have anyone else noticed weird behavior of squad infoboxes on player pages recently? Sometimes when it's the only box on the page (so it's expanded by default) and the page was just opened (not yet edited), it expands to two lines like this: [7]. I suspect it may have something to do with this recent refactoring: [8]. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. But not on all player articles (checked the handball ones i recently edited). Looks weird. Kante4 (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Should clear with a purge of the article. I've just null-edited my sandbox, where four navboxes were showing this behaviour, and they're back to normal now. Gricehead (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Re-protecting for current A-League season page

Following the success and help of the protection given following request here, could 2020–21 A-League get another at least month of protection to halt addition of rumours, such as the latest example? Thank you! :) --SuperJew (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Would you be able to help out? --SuperJew (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@SuperJew:  Done GiantSnowman 11:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you GiantSnowman --SuperJew (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Another unrelated thing on that page: should the team names in the club location maps be black text? I know they're using team colours, but yellow and shades of blue are difficult to read on that background, and seem to violate MOS:COLOR and MOS:ACCESS. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree.Kante4 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

How do I enter this season on a Stats table

This season 2020 Primera B Nacional is giving me some pause on how to record it in stats tables. Essentially, the 2019-20 season for the Argentine second tier got cancelled and never finished. So this short transitional season was set up to determine promotion relegation for the next season, which will start in 2021. This season is running from November 2020 until January 31, 2021 - seven games and then a playoffs. Officially it is called the "2020 season" but really it is a "2020-21 season" since it does end in 2021. In a stats table, under season would I write "2020" or "2020-21"? RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

2020, in my opinion. If that's what they call it, that's what it is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Arsenal unbeaten run

Just here to get a third-party opinion on something. In the article The Invincibles, the tables regarding the unbeaten matches of both Preston and Arsenal don't include any of the matches they played after the unbeaten run/streak ended. Could somebody explain simply why the Arsenal defeat to Manchester United isn't included, or ? Thanks in advance ItsKesha (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Article is about the unbeaten run and the concept of the club as "Invincibles". Any list I would expect to only include the games they didn't lose in. Regarding games they lost "after", well why not include games they lost before the run start too?
We might mention the game that ultimately broke the undefeated streak in the body of the article but not really important for the list itself.
Case in point: you can't recall who Preston lost against. Koncorde (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Why would a table listing the matches which comprised an unbeaten run also list matches after it ended? That makes no sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Thank you both for your comments. ItsKesha (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Current or most recent squad

There is a disagreement at Australia national soccer team with @Simione001: as to whether to display the most recent Australian squad, which last played in a world cup qualifier against Jordan on 14 November 2019. All the information on the squad has been removed. My view is that it is still the current squad (or as I edited the section heading, to "Current or most recent squad"), and that it makes little sense to completely omit the latest squad under some nominally accepted guideline about data being > 12 month's old. Whereas this guideline is fine for displaying other players that have been on the team or squad within twelve months as other "Recent Callups", application of this as a strict rule is simply not relevant this year due to COVID-19, where the Australian Men's team has gone now 13 months without a match, and as such these sections should not be blanked out. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you, the November 2019 should be displayed. I would also keep "current squad", as it is effectively the last squad used by the national team. Also, it's not like Australia ceased to exist or anything, it's just because of the current situation that they haven't played in over a year. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
COVID or not, surely squads from 13 months ago are no longer relevent? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Or add a note explaining it all above or below the squad. Kante4 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Normally 13 month old players wouldn't belong, but this is the year of Covid, so I feel some leniency is needed. Normally, a player who hasn't been called up might not be in consideration for a national team spot, that's why we remove them. That is obviously not the case here. Most, if not all of those players will still be first-choice. Feels like a perfect case of WP:IGNORE to me because there are extenuating circumstances for why they haven't played. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the rule of thumb is only call ups in the past 12 months. If there has been no call-up for 13 months in this unique situation I say keep it in for now, with a note explaining. GiantSnowman 16:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Yup - I'm in agreement with those advocating to keep it and not go hard and fast by the 12 month "rule", as it is mostly so that the recent call-ups section has a definition and isn't bogged down with players until they retire (which in some cases isn't always known either). --SuperJew (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
OK. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion should also apply to the Recent Callups section for the same reason. The players listed there were part of the same squad that are displayed in the Current Squad section, but left that squad i.e. due to injury. We should keep both, for the reasons discussed above. I note that @Simione001: is not contributing to this discussion, other than responding with another revert. I encourage Simione001 to join this discussion. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it is reasonable once the next squad is announced - which will likely be around February 2021 in the lead-up to March 2021 World Cup Qualifiers - that both of these sections would return to a more routine description. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't respond because I agree with the above consensus but I do think the line should be drawn at the current squad.Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Matilda Maniac, in that this should also extend to the recent call-ups (anyway, as they said, give it a couple of months until the next WC qualifiers and all will be back to normal). Nehme1499 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

FACs

There are currently three football articles at FAC that could do with more attention if anyone has some spare time over the upcoming holiday period.

Any reviews would be appreciated on all three I'm sure. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Honours section - what to include for specific cases

Hello. How de we know what trophies to include in the honours section for players that have transferred clubs or players that did not feature at all? I am bringing up this question from the example of Tanguy Nianzou, a player who played for Paris Saint-Germain but moved to Bayern Munich this summer.
What I am confused about is whether to include the Coupe de la Ligue and Coupe de France titles in the honours section. I am hesitant, because although he did play at least a match in both competitions for PSG, he was not contracted to them when the club won the trophies. He was playing for Bayern Munich.
To sum up a bit, here are my three main questions:
1. Do we include trophies for players who have played at least one match for the winning team in that season's competition regardless of whether they were contracted to the team when the trophy was won?
2. Do we include trophies for players who were contracted to the winning team of a competition when they may not have made a single appearance in the competition?
3. When a player is out on loan at another club, but has made at least an appearance in the beginning of the season for the parent club, and the parent club wins that competition (in which the player featured) later on in the season when the player on loan is still at his on-loan club, do we include this trophy in the honours section? (example: Jese)
4. Basically, what is the criteria for having a trophy included in the honours section of a player?
Sorry if my questions were a bit confusing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on French Football, but in the Premier League a player has to have made at least 3 appearances for a club to have "won" it. For domestic cup competitions the criteria is usually that the person has to have made a appearance in the cup. For your second question the answer is no, A player does not receive the honour if they haven't made a single appearance in the competition. As for the third question, my answer is the same as the first. The player has to make a required number of appearances to have won it. However, since this will vary from country to country someone else would be better placed to answer that. Or maybe you know it yourself? As for the fourth (which is one more three last time I checked :)). That would need a boarder consensus. Hope that was helpful! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: Thank you for your response. Just a last question, so say the minimum number of appearances to get a medal is 2, then does Nianzou get the Coupe de la Ligue as well even though he was not at PSG when they won it? (Same goes for another example, Cavani. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: I would say yes. He has made the required contribution and therefore his part in winning the cup should be recognized in spite of the fact that he was not actually at the club when it was won. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Giovanni Scanu

Is there anyone from FOOTY who might be willing to help this editor out? They are a new editor who seems to be trying to improve Giovanni Scanu in good faith, but who might not be a native English speaker. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could also help this editor sort out WP:THQ#transfermarkt no reliable? as well? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Fixed the article with wording and sources. Would someone else want to put it in better paragraphs. RedPatchBoy (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I've sorted into some paragraphs and made a few minor tweaks. Thanks Spiderone 13:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm talking with the guy, and have sorted out the issue regarding the photo. I've also filled the categories. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@RedPatchBoy, Spiderone, and Nehme1499: Thank you all for trying to help Gmasuri1989 out and for looking at and improving the Scanu article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: I saw that you're interacting with Gmasuri1989 in Italian on their user talk page and thus was wondering if you could perhaps advise them about a few other things. I don't understand Italian so my apologies if you've already done this.
The first thing might be to advise them of WP:COI (especially the WP:PAID part of it). The latest photo they've uploaded seems to suggest an access to Scanu that might indicate an WP:APPARENTCOI. There's no need to come down hard on the editor even if turns out they do have some connection, but they probably should be at least made aware of things like COI, PAID, WP:OWN, WP:BIOSELF, etc. if they intend to continue editing the article or any other content about Scanu. There are various templates that can be used to do this, but they're in English and might be difficult for a non-native English speaker to understand. There's not much I can do about the actual policy/guideline pages except to suggest that Gmasuri1989 try and use something like Google translate if they're having difficulty understanding them.
Finally, you might also want to advise them that English is the preferred language for interacting with others on English Wikipedia. I think it's OK to try an help others out in their mother tongue when they are having problems, but they shouldn't expect everyone to be able to do so. This isn't really an issue now, but it could become one if they stick around and edit more articles and start interacting with more editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I haven't really asked, but it's very obvious that Scanu is either a family member or a close friend to the user. He specifically stated: "I am currently with him, and can directly take the picture now". He seems to be acting in good faith, so I'll keep from "scaring" him off with all the WP rules. Obviously, if COI becomes too apparent in his editing, I'll talk to him know about it. I'll also let him know that maybe the it.wiki is best suited for him, if he doesn't feel very comfortable speaking in English. Nehme1499 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Nehme1499 for all of that. Your approach seems quite sensible. Since you and others are now involved, I think that any COI-like content that is added is likely going to be cleared up quite quickly. Perhaps Gmasuri1989 (and Scanu) will be happy and stay away now that they see others are genuinely trying to improve the article. It's much better now than it was a few days ago. One thing you might want to ask Gmasuri1989, if possible, is to try and take a less dreary looking photo of Scanu and upload that to Commons when they get the chance; that, however, is just my personal opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Ahahahaha I agree with you on the photo. I didn't want to ask him, as Scanu might have taken it to offense (?). Anyway, I potentially think that he has "finished" his work on wiki, in the sense that, as you say, he will have seen that many editors are taking their time to improve the page, and will likely "retire". We'll see, if he pops back I'll try to ask him :) Nehme1499 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

İstanbul Başakşehir F.K.

Before I go in with the hedge trimmers, can someone else cast an eye over the article and let me know I am not mad in thinking the Past Seasons and European History need binning. The Past Seasons already has an article. And I can't see how individual European results are relevant. Koncorde (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the European record can be relevant until there is a İstanbul Başakşehir F.K. in European football article. – PeeJay 23:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll just move that down and move the squad and staff sections up. Koncorde (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing Elo from infobox template

Now that the FIFA rankings are simply an adjusted (for game importance) Elo as of 2018, can we remove the Elo sections of Template:Infobox national football team? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I object. Even if calculation method is now similar, it's still a different ranking, especially in regards with historical positions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't like the idea of including the Elo rankings at all. I'm not sure what purpose they serve other than being an alternative ranking system that someone once had a preference for. They're not referred to in any media outside Wikipedia as far as I can tell, except for people who specifically report on Elo rankings. – PeeJay 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
They should definitely be removed, and should never have been added in the first place. I've never seen them in a footballing context anywhere other than the infobox; unofficial rankings should not be held up to be equal to official rankings. OZOO (t) (c) 00:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Kante4 (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I would support its removal too. Number 57 13:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Same. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Elo is the very definition of WP:NOSTATS- it's a stat that's not commonly reported in reliable sources. Should be removed, as world ranking is the thing that matters, and is sourceable on non stats sites. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have some questions about football

Throughout football-related pages, I discover some words I don't understand.

  1. On Competitive record section of national team pages, what is the difference between "Did not enter" and "Did not qualify"?
  2. Are "loan" and "transfer" the same thing?
  3. On list of football transfers pages, what is the difference between "retired" and "released"?

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@CuteDolphin712: I'll try to answer your questions :) Hope it makes sense
  1. "Did not qualify" refers to tournaments which have a qualifying process, for example to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, African teams had to go through their confederation's qualification process. In the article you can see for example that Tunisia topped their group in the third round and therefore qualified to the World Cup, while DR Congo, Libya, and Guinea didn't. Also you can see teams that lost in the second round (such as Mauritania) and in the first round (such as Somalia) and didn't qualify either. "Did not enter" refers to tournaments without a qualification process and then the team wasn't invited or chose not to compete. It can also refer to tournaments with a qualification process that the team decided not to enter the qualification process either.
  2. They are different contract statuses. A loan is a temporary move, meaning the player is loaned to the team but is still contracted to their parent club, who might pay part of their wages too, and will return to them at the end of the loan. You can read more at Loan (sports).
  3. "Retired" means the player is not playing professionally anymore, while "released" means they left the club, but will probably continue playing if they are signed by another club.

Feel free to ask follow-ups --SuperJew (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

What will the players and staff do after the national team failed to qualify a major tournament (like when Iceland lost to Hungary in UEFA Euro 2020 qualifying play-offs final)? Staying at home or something?CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
They won't participate in the UEFA Euro 2020, and won't travel anywhere. They can do whatever they want, set up friendlies, or just sit on the couch eating pop-corn and watching the tournament at home. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Should youth honours be included?

I'm not sure if this topic has already been brought up, but should youth club tournament honours be included? Given that we also include international youth competitions (such as the FIFA U-20 World Cup), I don't see why we shouldn't add youth club honours (if properly sourced). Nehme1499 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A major youth tournament? Yes. A under-9 5-a-side tournament? No. GiantSnowman 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Stuff like Campionato Primavera 1 and Supercoppa Primavera are considered major, right? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
If it has its own Wikipedia article, I'd say yes. GiantSnowman 20:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't how we've always done it before, at least for club-level youth honours. I hardly ever see FA Youth Cups or Premier League 2 titles added to articles. – PeeJay 11:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
That's probably down to lack of sources available (or lack of desire to search for them). Nehme1499 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that's a bold statement to make, since there are plenty of sources around about which teams have won the FA Youth Cup and who played in the finals. – PeeJay 12:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok maybe not specifically for English competitions, as those are easy to source (even the Isthmian League stats are easy to find). My comment was more regarding leagues in more obscure countries (Lebanon, Estonia, etc.) Still, I don't see any reason not to include them, given that we already have an established precedent of putting international youth competitions. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you can equate the inclusion of international youth honours with club youth honours. – PeeJay 13:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The Serie A is to the World Cup what the Campionato Primavera 1 is to the U-19 World Cup. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Which would put the Campionato Primavera 1 below the threshold for inclusion, IMO. But what do reliable sources do when they list a player's honours? I doubt they often include club youth honours, but this is your treasure hunt, my friend. – PeeJay 16:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
What threshold are we talking about? If a player won a tournament in their youth and an editor decides to include it as sourced information in the body of the article then that is fine by me. If we're talking about under "honours" at the foot of the page, we're already arbitrary on that depending on what we roughly consider to be an honour in any case. Koncorde (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
When in doubt, see if any sources mention it in retrospect. SportingFlyer T·C 12:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Long Break in national team caps

I recalled this from an article I edited before where a player had a 10 year absence in the national team before returning for a few matches. Instead of writing 1998-2010, it's recorded as 1998-2000, 2010 in the infobox. I like this seeing as it seems more informative, but just wanted your thoughts. RedPatchBoy (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Should be one "spell". Kante4 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep it's the entirety of the duration the same as if a player was contracted to a club but dis not play any matches. For instance, just because they made no appearances for 10 years might not necessarily mean they were not in squads, on the bench etc.
Ideally any gap should be explained in the body. Such as "x player retired from international duty due to y" or "x player was not considered for international duty because y" if such a reason exists, or at the minimum should say "after making an appearance in x it would be y years before they would again make an appearance on the international stage for the national team". Koncorde (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Definitely one spell, I've never ever seen it displayed like that before. GiantSnowman 11:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with above. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Tribute to Houllier & Maradona

Maybe not the right place for this but here it is. As a tribute to the late Diego Maradona and Gerard Houllier, can we get as many signatures as possible below? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

For what purpose? Are we planning to submit the list somewhere? And what about Paolo Rossi? – PeeJay 07:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If anything, it would make more sense to improve the articles and push them towards GA. That's more of a tribute. Govvy (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I too am unsure of the point of signatures. Have we become a petition website? --SuperJew (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Consider my edits to the three articles my "tributes". ;-) Robby.is.on (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the point of collecting signatures in tribute, but if that is the choice they shouldn't be on the main project talk page (saturating watchlists being one consideration). A subpage of the project or, better, a user page is more appropriate and can be linked from here. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I've added a stats table for Houllier.--EchetusXe 11:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion, so if it wasn't appropriate for here then I'm sorry. (I hadn't realised that Rossi had passed away). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of the season, thought I'd share this wiki page for this club

I came across this club. Nothing wrong with the page, just figured it was very appropriately named given the season and worth a share. May I present, from Finland, FC Santa Claus. RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn’t Chris Musampa used to play for them?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, they are not that far from Lapland! Govvy (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have actually been to the Santa Claus Village and met what I was assured was the real Santa......but he never mentioned he was planning on taking over a football club. How egotistical of him to buy a club and re-name it after himself ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I just looked at their results. What a fall. 10 years ago in 2010, they were a win away from promotion to the second tier. Last year, in 2019 they finished last in the fifth tier to get relegated to the sixth tier. Santa needs to start giving more footballs as presents instead of toys, might improve the team's technical ability RedPatchBoy (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I did some research and with the use of Google Translate, this forum makes it appear like they did not register for the sixth tier this season. Their Facebook page makes it appear like they joined a random sunday league instead. Although the youth club looks to be going strong. Looks like the junior team has some sort of relationship with West Bromwich Albion. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

St. Louis Kutis SC unreferenced article

Hi Project, I came across St. Louis Kutis S.C. and found it is unreferenced. A two-time US Open Cup champion (1957 and 1986) deserves a better article. Anyone interested in improving it? @Libro0: @Jimmygrant93: @Mohrflies: - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 17:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It isn't actually unreferenced - there are references in the "external links" in the bottom - but there are no inline citations and it's not referenced in the normal Wikipedia way. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Help to get Draft article into mainspace: Daniel Sillman

Hi, I am a COI editor that has been working to get an article about Daniel Sillman, the CEO of Relevent Sports Group, a major promoter of football/soccer in the USA, admitted to Wikipedia. It is now in draft form, and has been rejected for inclusion in Wikipedia due to lack of notability. I wonder if anyone from this project would mind looking over the draft, perhaps make some beneficial edits, or give me some suggestions of how to improve the article enough to get it accepted. There is also a draft of a Relevent Sports Group page, if you would not mind looking at that one as well I would appreciate it. Thanks so much in advance. SylviaatRSG (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

AFC team would view the draft and accept it, or not. There is a few AFC team member here and they have their own judgement based on WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. You can't simply ask for acceptance. Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Infobox football biography

Changes are proposed to {{Infobox football biography}} that would scrap the wrapping of club names. You can see an example of what this would do to the Senior career section here, where the infobox on the right is the proposed version. Comments are welcome at Template talk:Infobox football biography#Infobox wrapping tweak. Number 57 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. The change proposed seems to do the opposite of what you suggest, i.e. enforces wrapping by removing the hardcoded nowrap. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, you're correct. Number 57 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeroen Boere

He was a dutch footballer who went to Japan, lost an eye, and died in 2007. However the article lists conflicting causes of death. It's been 13 years, surely a source has firmly established a cause of death right? I would imagine there's Dutch sources on this that have settled the discrepancy in sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Dutch sources list the exact same causes as the article. The official statement is that he died at his home in Marbella cause of an unspecified accident. --Sb008 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
We should probably remove the speculation from the article in favour of a more authoritative sources. Koncorde (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Netherlands wikipedia uses this archive source no idea as to reliability. Koncorde (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Manual of style question

I was editing some articles to follow the manual of style for players regarding honours (#RfC on Honours section) by adding the sub heading club, international and individual and was just wondering if I should keep going or is it really not necessary. For example, should I apply the changes to honours in Yaya Touré. 03Heat (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@03Heat: It is really up to you. If you can keep going and changing the articles the great. If not then its not the end of the world. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Club names in articles about football matches

I'm working on Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women and one issue that has come up is with the club names in the article's title. From matches in the men's leagues we have examples such as Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C., Manchester United F.C. 4–3 Manchester City F.C. (2009). But we also have simpler versions such as Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989) and Yeovil Town 2–1 Sunderland (1949). In women's football I haven't found any examples yet, hopefully there are some. Are there already established rules for this issue? (A second issue is the inclusion of the year, but let's leave that for a separate discussion.) Edwininlondon (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would say the year only needs including if there have been multiple matches between the teams with the same score (so it functions as a disambiguator). There's probably been another Man U 4 Man C 3 at some point (I haven't checked) so it would be valid there if there has. I'm pretty sure there's never been another Sutton 2 Coventry 1, though, so I don't see any need for it there....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK the use of names is usually as per the parent article, so the first examples are correct, but the "simpler versions" should be moved. --SuperJew (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll point out this is my understanding of the project's consensus, and not my personal opinion. Personally I think the simpler versions are less cluttered, but this can also be applied to article names (depends on club of course - for example Sydney FC has to have the "FC" as a disambiguator because of the city, but for Western Sydney Wanderers FC it is redundant) --SuperJew (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think the simpler version is better with the year. No need for F.C. in there because it seems surplusage and title clutter to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Worth knowing as well that there are also ones like 1872 Scotland v England football match and 1985 Wales v Scotland football match. Granted that's international teams and not club teams but Australia 31–0 American Samoa is on the same pattern as those club articles. FWIW, I don't think you need the FC but it might be worth looking at a standard naming convention for them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Edwininlondon what's your preferred title for this article? Hmlarson (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"Arsenal Women Football Club 11–1 Bristol City Women Football Club" has the advantage of removing doubt which sport it is and whether it is men's or women's, but fails the naturalness and conciseness tests. I'm not so sure that "Arsenal W.F.C. 11–1 Bristol City W.F.C." passes the recognizability test. I suspect many readers will infer the article to be about the men's teams, basically missing the W. bit. "Arsenal Women F.C. 11–1 Bristol City Women F.C." avoids that but still fails the naturalness test. Having read WP:COMMONNAME, with the example of using "North Korea" instead of "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", my preference is for "Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women". This matches BTW how the BBC and the Guardian describe fixtures in their fixtures lists. As for adding the year in parentheses, I would only add it when needed to disambiguate, not by rule, in order to keep it concise typically. So unnecessary in the 11–1 case. Edwininlondon (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women sounds good to me as well.Hmlarson (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Block request

Hi folks. Could one of the admins here please block Iulianrusse33123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for disruptive editing? They repeatedly update stats without updating timestamps. They have received plenty of warnings but I don't think I have seen them communicate once in their time here. A rollback of their changes would be in order, too. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I am not sure they have been asked enough times to warrant a block. I have given them a final warning and will block them if they make such edits again, so please ping me if you spot this continuing. Cheers, Number 57 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Four warnings seem more than sufficient to me? On top of that, I have reverted dozens of their edits. If you ask me, they had enough opportunity to respond. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The first few warnings didn't actually describe the problem; only one of the messages on his talk pages actually tells him what he's doing wrong. Number 57 21:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, fair point. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

There is an admin noticeboard entirely for disruptive editing. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean AN/I? In my experience, this is quicker. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's another user to block: 185.190.132.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They've been at it for months, ago, and have received plenty of warnings. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI or WP:AIV is the place for these requests. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OCLOCATION and footballer categories

There's been a debate over at CfD about WP:OCLOCATION and sportspeople, mostly in a North American context (whether we should diffuse Sportspeople from City to Basketball players from city). It seems like the standard here is to categorise sportspeople based on their original birthplace - for instance, Luka Modrić is simply in Category:Sportspeople from Zadar but for example Stuart Pearce is in four separate geographic categories, all separate parts of London, and none of which are defining per the rules of when categories are acceptable. The Pearce categories seem like a clear overcat to me and my guess is he should probably only be in a category like "Sportspeople from Hammersmith" or even "Sportspeople from London" but I'm checking here to see if there's a reason for having him (and others) be categorised from several different locations before proposing anything over at CfD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Pearce is in the categories for the district where he was born, two different districts where he attended school, and..........frankly I have no idea why he is in a category for people from Harrow. Maybe the issue is that people have different definitions of what being "from" somewhere means. Is it where the subject was actually born? That might have been literally the only time they were ever in that town. Or is it where they grew up? And if that, what if they grew up in many different places due to parental job changes, etc? It's a minefield, frankly........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Only thing I can think of is that Wealdstone played in Harrow when he played for him, which clearly shouldn't count. The London cats specifically are a complete mess. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, i am really not sure why Category:Footballers from Milan, Category:Footballers from Naples are (re-)created. Matthew hk (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a general mess for all biographical articles (anyone who was born in X but grew up in Y and Z will often be in all three cats), frankly the "people from" categories should have clearer inclusion/exclusion criteria IMO. Not sure if we need footballers from anywhere rather than sportspeople from that place. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this, the categories of 'People from X' as a whole are a real mess and BLP nightmare. Personally where I was born, where I spent my early years, and where I consider myself from are all different. GiantSnowman 19:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Each person has a different way of answering "where they are from". Is it where you are born? Where you grew up? Where your parents are from? Your ancestral city? Or the city where you live now? There needs to be more clarity on this. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This is why we have issues with nationalities too as we all well know. It gets very heated when discussing an "Algerian" who was born in Algeria but represents France and has never had anything other than French nationality (as an example) it was just an accident of birth because his parents were ambassadors (I can't even remember who this example is).
I, for instance, was not born in the town I was from because there was no maternity hospital in my town. If I had been born 8 years earlier I would have been born in a different county. If I was born 180 years earlier I would have been from a township not yet formally part of the town - and so on and so forth. So categories are liable to be accurate only at certain dates and time. Koncorde (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Can you please link to the CfD? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Nehme1499, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_1#Basketball_players_by_city_or_town_in_the_United_States. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Nehme1499 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion and the fact an RfC hasn't gotten up and running yet, and based on the comments in this thread, I've nominated Footballers from Milan category for deletion here. Your comments are welcome. SportingFlyer T·C 15:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone give a notice with the user that create Category:Footballers from Buenos Aires. I am bad in communication but it seem the user need to know this thread existed. Matthew hk (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Adriano Quintão

A strange case, this one. Soccerway, the sole source, doesn't actually confirm the alleged 3 international caps. I've searched NFT, the most reliable source in my view, and found no such player at any point. It appears that the only source for his caps is Transfermarkt, which we don't consider reliable. I can also find no reliable sources for any of the alleged clubs that he played for. This guy isn't pre-internet era and did play for high profile clubs, apparently. Is there any chance that the caps are legit? Spiderone 12:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Timor-Leste only played two games in 2007, so it's impossible for him to have played three. Also, Soccerway shows him having been on the bench in both 2007 games. Transfermarkt is obviously unreliable as you said, and NFT doesn't have him, so I would say this is a "hoax", or possibly the guy who created the page wasn't aware that TM is unreliable. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
He was also deleted from the Italian wiki following the same reasoning (the 2 caps shown on Soccerway are not actual caps, as he was just on the bench). Nehme1499 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the infobox so it says 0 caps (as supported by SW source). Which means I don't believe he is notable enough, clearly fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY either it seems. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Also done a quick spot check on the article creator's other articles of the same era (2012). Torin Ferguson also claims to have 1 cap based on [9]- is this a reliable source? Soccerway says 0 caps (but 3 bench appearances). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Ferguson is good: his cap came at the 2007 Caribbean Cup, which is pre-Soccerway. WorldFootball.net and (weirdly) the Grenada FA back this up. He also has a bit of coverage from his beach soccer career. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah NFT is (>95% of the time) reliable. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Soccerway is not ideal for international matches at all. Incomplete at best. GiantSnowman 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to take this one to AfD. Please feel free to comment further and please let me know if sources are found that establish notability. Spiderone 18:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Serbia national football team

Hey. I have a question, do I need to change the Serbia national football team page? Serbia was selected for the World Cup 2 times (2010,2018), other times it was not the Serbian national team, but the national team of other countries (Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro). In my opinion, you need to edit the page a little, do you agree?About the same with the Russian national team David Cok 122 (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If FIFA officially recognizes a continuity between two national teams, then the records of the defunct national team are counted for the current one too. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the page is correct. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think FIFA recognized Serbia as the successor of FY Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro, so that wiki article is correct. Can't remember Serbia is the successor of the record of SFR Yugoslavia or not. Matthew hk (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the pages of the national teams of Russia and Serbia in other languages ​​and noticed that someone is keeping up-to-date statistics, that is, since the formation of modern national teams, and someone is general. It seems to me that this is more a matter of perception. David Cok 122 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not perception, it's what FIFA officially states. Nehme1499 (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
http://www.rsssf.com/tabless/serb-intres.html David Cok 122 (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
According to FIFA (page 58): "FIFA Affiliation: 1923"
"Serbia was called Yugoslavia before February 2003 then Serbia and Montenegro until 2006. Played in inaugural FWC in 1930 (no preliminary competition), first qualifying competition in 1934. Reached the semi-finals 1930, but declined to play the match for third place (opponents USA). Yugoslavia played in 1930 - and at the qualifiers for 1934 & 1938 - as the Kingdom of Serbia and Montenegro. The country became a federal republic in 1946, and played as such up to the FWC in 1990. Excluded from 1994 due to the war in the area. In 2006, Serbia was declared independent from Montenegro." Nehme1499 (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Or this link https://www.fifa.com/associations/association/srb/about
While for Russia, it seem FIFA treated Russian Empire and the modern Russia is the same entity https://www.fifa.com/associations/association/rus/about
While for China (ROC), FIFA seem treated PRC is the successor state https://www.fifa.com/associations/association/chn/about and Taiwan (ROC after 1949) as sperate state. Matthew hk (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answer. I was simply embarrassed by the fact that earlier these were other countries, including by ethnic composition. For example, Ukrainians, Russians and so on played in the USSR. And foreign-language versions of Wikipedia keep different statistics, some take into account modern successes, and clearly separate the teams from each other. So I was a little confused as to how correct it was. In addition, Russia's success at the 2018 World Cup was named the best in its history. David Cok 122 (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for German-American Soccer League

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—German-American Soccer League—has been proposed for merging with Cosmopolitan Soccer League. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Malo95 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islands football

Hey all, looking for a second opinion here. Stumbled upon 2020 Stanley Services Ltd. Indoor League and initially thought it was just a non-notable league, however, it appears to be a national level league for the Falklands, or at least I think so. I believe this to be the official website. What do you reckon? Is it notable enough for season by season level of coverage here? Spiderone 22:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a five-a-side league (see e.g. here). Number 57 23:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@Number 57: Is twitter reliable enough to back up that information? (Do not start a whole discussion about twitter, but should you really be using twitter to say this?) Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
For the purposes of this discussion, yes. Here's some coverage from Falkland Islands TV (the Twitter account is one of their reporters). Number 57 23:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Well based on that video, it's a 4-aside league (3 players and a keeper) RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
For info, the article is now at Draft:2020 Stanley Services Ltd. Indoor League (2). Even if there is no organised outdoor 11-a-side football in the Falklands, can a four-a-side indoor league really be said to be the "national level league" in association football? It's debatable (IMO) whether it's even the same sport....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
It can probably be moved to Draft:2020 Stanley Services Ltd. Indoor League since that page links to the now deleted page this now Draft (2) article was moved from RedPatchBoy (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Runner-up honours

Hello. Does being runner-up in a competition count as an honour that is notable enough to be included in the honours section? And if so, where should it be listed? (Above cup honours, above league honours, or below.) I would like some clarification, because I have noticed for some articles we include runner-up honours for the UEFA Champions League but maybe not the league. An example would be Marco Verratti - a runner-up honour is not included for the 2016-17 Ligue 1 (and the 2018-19 Coupe de France), but it is for the 2019-20 UEFA Champions League. Overarching question: do we include runner-up honours in the honours section at all in the first place?
If not, there must be a lot of editing done for many articles, as I have seen many articles where runner-up honours are included. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

They are included for cup competitions, not league competitions (unless it's a promotion, in which case it's a promotion honour not runners-up honour).--EchetusXe 09:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@EchetusXe: Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Super cup in honours section

Hello. I had previously asked a question about this in general here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_137#Honours_section_-_what_to_include_for_specific_cases . This section is a follow up question on this.
I was wondering, is there an exception for super cup matches (such as the UEFA Super Cup) for which an honour can be attributed without the player making an appearance? Because really, only a few players can make appearances in a super cup match, as it's only one match. I want to ask if whether a player still gets the super cup honour in his honour section if he was on the bench during the super cup match but did not come into the field. An example would be Sven Ulreich: he did not feature in the 2020 UEFA Super Cup, but the super cup is still in his honours section. I would like some clarification on this, thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a reward. 1.The player is in the application for the tournament. 2.They are all awarded medals at the ceremony, therefore, they are officially prize-winners David Cok 122 (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Cok 122: Can you please clarify that? It was not very clear.
So for a yes or no answer, do we include "UEFA Super Cup" as an honour for Sven Ulreich even if he did not play in the match? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie::Oh sorry, the answer is yes.[1]I meant that he was in the application for the tournament. He was also awarded a medal, like all other players.[2]David Cok 122 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://fcbayern.com/ru/news/2020/10/danke-sven-ulreich-der-fc-bayern-wird-dich-vermissen
  2. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/bayern-munich-vs-sevilla-result-final-score-uefa-super-cup-goals-highlights-martinez-goretzka-ocampos-b581378.html?amp

List of international goals scored by Neymar AfD

I feel it needs some more editors to comment on it. Govvy (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I also have a problem with List of international goals scored by Ronaldo, why do most people want to merge that back into Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer). That article is already big enough. I really don't understand why people forget the problems of article size! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Please be wary of WP:CANVASS. GiantSnowman 13:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Really, and you want to merge stuff without regards to WP:ARTICLESIZE. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

One more question about football

I look through season pages of football league, see here for example.

What is the difference between "resigned", "sacked", and "mutual consent"? I know the word "sacked", but are the other two words the same thing?CuteDolphin712 (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"Resigned" means simply that the manager voluntarily chose to leave his job, often because he had been offered another one. "Mutual consent" implies that the manager had a meeting with the board of directors and after some discussion they came to an agreement that it would be in the best interests of everyone if he left the job. Although I have seen suggestions that sometimes a club's board simply sack a manager but agree to say that it was by mutual consent because it doesn't sound quite so bad........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
In terms of difference (at least by North American definition), resigned usually means they quit voluntarily and leave their contract and all the money that comes with it, sacked means they were fired and they are still owed and received the money left on the contract, mutual consent means they both agree, which could involve them receiving some of the money left (a buyout). Granted mutual consent can involve anything, including as Chris noted to make it not look so bad RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Persistent rumour additions

Hi, The IP 49.2.163.247 keeps adding unsourced rumours to clubs' season pages, and persists despite being asked to stop on their talk page. What more can be done? Is a block in order? --SuperJew (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report to WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 09:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Done the first two. Will report. Thanks --SuperJew (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Prose in club season article

How much prose is too much? For example, is the prose at 2020–21 A.C. Monza season#Serie B too much? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long. Could probably be summarised a bit though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a bit too much. Here's a season which is a recent FA, obviously close to my heart: 1980–81 Ipswich Town F.C. season. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I would say that is too much for the time being as you have to think that you need to cover for the whole season, not just the matches that have been played. HawkAussie (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I've amended the article (before, after). Nehme1499 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Former vs retired

When a player is no longer active, because they have retired, do we refer to them as "retired" or "former" footballers in the opening paragraph? Do we change the short description to (example) "Algerian former/retired footballer" or do we keep it as "Algerian footballer"? And when a player is retired, do we still say they are professional - what I mean is, do we say a player is a "retired/former professional footballer" or just "retired/former footballer"? Thanks for answering my questions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The format should be 'X is a [Nationality] [former OR retired - both have the same meaning] [professional - if appropriate/applicable] footballer'. GiantSnowman 16:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Would the same criteria discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_137#When_is_a_player_considered_%22professional%22? be used to determine if the player is professional even after retirement? I assume a player would be professional after going through retirement if they were professional their entire careers. And lastly, for deceased footballers, I assume it is the same as if they were retired for choosing whether they were pro or not. Just a thought. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Most players will be notable for having played at a professional level, and the lede should make it clear why or how a player is notable - even if they retire/die. GiantSnowman 17:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Per GS. Always go by the most senior level achieved as the obvious source of notability. If they are a current player at a semi pro, then you say "is a footballer with semi pro side X". If they played professional and semi pro you might say "is a retired footballer who played professionally for X" or "for several clubs" to leave room for "before moving to lower leagues" or similar. Or you may say "was a retired footballer who played professionally for". It very much depends on the kind of career they had. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
On the topic of former/retired I'd say go for former as it sounds more formal and retired suggests to me that they're sitting there on a pension with no work prospects rather than just an ex-footballer.--EchetusXe 18:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Funny, for me "former" sounds like they are dead. Not sure why, but it does, so i go with retired. Kante4 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought former was the norm here, so I have always gone with that. And I agree with Echetus' reasoning. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that it should always be "an English former footballer", not "a former English footballer", because the latter sounds like they are still a footballer but are no longer English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting for the club name in the opening paragraph

Hello. Another question. How do we write the name of a club in the opening paragraph of a player article? Because many clubs, specifically French clubs, have a name like Stade Rennais F.C., but we refer to them as "Rennes", because this is the name of the city they are from. In the opening paragraph of a player, it is usually something like: "... is a professional footballer who plays as a defender for Ligue 1 club Rennes." The thing is, "Rennes" isn't a Ligue 1 club. I understand we put "Rennes" in the infobox, and in the club career section, but to say the "club Rennes" is not correct, because this is the name of the city, and the club is Stade Rennais. Maybe this is not the best example, but it also goes for RC Lens. The club is called RC Lens, but I don't know if we should say "Ligue 1 club Lens" or "Ligue 1 club RC Lens in the opening paragraph. It is not clear whether we should write the name of what we refer to the club in the infobox or the actual name of the club — because "Lens" or "Rennes" is not the name of a Ligue 1 club, but I think we should refer to them like this in the infobox. Personally, I think we should refer to the clubs as "Rennes" or "Lens" in most places (infobox & etc), but when writing something club, we should say the actual club's name, because "Rennes" isn't a club. It's a city. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I usually follow WP:COMMONNAME for this. The question is. What is the most commonly used name for Stade Rannais F.C.? If it is Rennes, then I would say go with it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
If you are concerned, change it? In the end piping is very much intended to make sentences flow more easily when read (hence why we say "Inter Milan" rather than just "Inter" or "Milan" or "Internazionale"). If the meaning isn't conveyed, or is potentially misleading, then change it.
However, many clubs are known as their city, because most clubs are named for the city / town they are from anyway and it's clear enough to English speakers that we are referring to / piping to the club, and mixing different piping in an article can be more confusing than just using one standard throughout. Koncorde (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Koncorde: Then what do you suggest? Because personally, I think saying "Ligue 1 club Rennes" is a bit weird. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
As an Italian, "Inter Milan" sounds revolting. But if it's the common name in English (remember, we are on the English Wikipedia), then that's what should be written. Idk if Rennes is the common name or not, but the most prominent way to refer to the club in English should be used (regardless of how ridiculous it sounds in French). Nehme1499 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately Nehme it's kinda stuck with us all these many years. We even recognise that it is odd but we're not ready to go all foreign.
As for Rennes. Rennes is kinda well known as is Lens when we are talking inside an article about football. Is it possible to confuse Rennes and Stad Rennais, or RC Lens and Lens, maybe, but I think for the most part users will have them be interchangeable in their head unless we start mixing / matching inside articles. Koncorde (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: @Koncorde: So what do y'all say, do we write the name of the city? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The answer is there is no universal answer. However, Rennes is a perfectly fine way to present the club name in an English article per sites such as the BBC and Sky Sports where it is in the norm even in match reports. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it is very context related. If it is a football-related article and it is clear that it is a name of a club, then it is fine. --SuperJew (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Mohun Bagan

The MB-ATKMB article issue is now solved. But, the MB article is a complete mess. It says ATKMB as under parent MB, its the football section of MB etc. but their website doesn't mention football matches/squad anymore. Squad till 2019-20, Standings till 2019-20 and news also till 2019-20. It doesn't mention the ATKMB matches but mentions other sports of MB. So, it doesn't seem its directly under MB or its football section. I am raising this thing so that we can solve and end this.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  10:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Old Norwich City season

I was pointed in this direction in the hope someone could help me. I recently created the page 1989–90 Norwich City F.C. season and have included a rather basic home and away kit. However, both strips for that season included green stripes radiating from the upper left hand corner and occupying the upper half of the shirt, as in this image here. I do not have the first idea how to add or create that pattern, so can anyone give any advice? Skteosk (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Skteosk: You would have to digitally draw the kit itself on your computer, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons (see File:Kit body norwich2021a.png, for example). Once uploaded, you would have to edit the "pattern_b1=" parameter in the 1989–90 season page, and add the new kit (for example, pattern_b1=_norwich8990h). Keep in mind to put the "_" before the kit name, and don't put the text "body". So it's "_norwich8990h", not "Kit body norwich2021a". The file name should however be under the model "Kit body [whatever you want].png". Hopefully I've been clear. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
You can also browse Category:Association football kit body, maybe there is a similar kit already. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll give it some thought.Skteosk (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Skteosk. You might find a better image of the kit you wish to create here. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

LFC History

Does anyone know if lfchistory.net is likely to pass as a reliable source? I have an article I'm considering for FA and one of the pages there would significantly bolster the article for that. There is an about page here with a list of the main contributors if that is any use. Kosack (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is one of the most reliable sites for complete club records, with an excellent reputation. For what it's worth, their records (including teamsheets) for games against Tottenham match records that I've checked against reliable sources. Unfortunately, it might not pass the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, especially when confronted by anti-soccer wikilawyers, although I'd like to be wrong. Which page(s) is of interest? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
They have an article on Alex Raisbeck, in which he references his experience of the 1902 Ibrox disaster. The story is attributed to a series of interviews he gave in the "Weekly News" but I can't seem to find them in the British Newspaper Archive. Kosack (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The series of articles by Raisbeck are available on the web at playupliverpool.com. These seem to be transcripts of the original articles, although again there is the problem about the reliability. It seems clear that the information is verifiable as there must be a library somewhere with archives. Perhaps you can contact playupliverpool.com or Chris Wood at lfchistory.net (who has the scans according to this). —  Jts1882 | talk  10:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with JTS. Ideally we would want to reference the same newspaper articles directly rather than a second hand transcript. Koncorde (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
It would depend on what kind of claim is being made (for me). For statistics of individuals, or clubs, there are dozens of definitely reliable sources we should be using before any fan site where possible (even Primary Sources) or sites that collate all clubs / international teams which have prolonged period of showing reliability (RSSSF). For biographical information about a player (debut, first goal etc) this gets a little more hazy as this usually requires finding specific match reports, season reports, or pen profiles of players themselves. This isn't so bad for stuff in the last 20 years as there will be a BBC article somewhere to back-up most stuff, but prior to that we're dependent on published books and / or archives of newspapers.
Now, LFCHistory floats somewhere in the same region as spartacus-educational.com for me. However Spartacus I (personally) find a little more authoritative because he usually embeds references to the source material such as books or magazines which can be cross referenced, so when I wrote the History of West Ham United F.C. page many years ago even though Spartacus was a general source, where possible I identified the original source to reference meaning it only ended up being referenced directly once for "Letter to Syd King East Ham Echo (27th April 1923)" which I could not find an archive copy of. In contrast, I couldn't tell you if John Davies really existed and / or if that is a picture of him in the same way I couldn't verify if Tommy Allison information is accurate either.
In short; I have no easy answer. By wikipedia standards the answer is probably a resounding no as its both user generated content / self published. But at some point they have to kind of gain some sense of reliability for fact checking, I am just not sure how we would go about that if they don't cite sources. Koncorde (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Empty rows in career statistics

Hello. Sorry if it may seem I am spamming, but I have a lot of questions regarding football articles. My question here is, do we remove rows (horizontal) if players have made no appearances in a single season? An example would be Alexandre Letellier. He made 0 appearances in the 2011–12 season (with Angers), but I am not sure if I should remove that row or not. I know that we have to remove columns (vertical), for example if a player has only played in the second division of a country and has made never been in a club that is in a continental competition. And about that, secondly, do we remove the column if the player has never played for a team that has been available to play in that type of competition, or if they have not made an appearance in that type of competition at all. For example, Rayan Aït-Nouri has been available to play in a league cup in the past (the Coupe de la Ligue), but he has never played in a league cup match, so do we remove that column for him? Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

If a player was contracted but made 0 appearances, then we include the season row but have '0' in all of the columns. GiantSnowman 14:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Thanks. What about columns? (example with Ait Nouri). Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
If a player can play in a competition, but didn't, then we should leave the columns. If the club wasn't eligible at all, then the columns should be removed. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect. Columns should remain intact - if the club was not eligible at all then the '0' is usually replaced with a '–' or similar. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players#Career statistics. GiantSnowman 16:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
If no club at all was ineligible it should be removed. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, no, we do NOT delete columns like that - only if the entire column is not applicable (i.e. no 'Continental' column for somebody who has only played for clubs that play domestic football etc.). GiantSnowman 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I meant to say "eligible", not "ineligible", oops. Yeah, anyway I agree with what you're saying. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've seen some articles with players have rows with zero stats all season. I hate that and feel it should be avoided. Govvy (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Why? It indicates that the player was under contract and that he didn't play. The number "0" is information in and of itself, as much as "10" or "50" are. Nehme1499 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Futsal caps

Apologies if this has been asked before. Are players capped for the national futsal team presumed notable as per WP:NFOOTBALL/NSPORTS? For example, Pjero Andrijašević looks to fail general notability criteria but might pass if I can prove that he played for the futsal team (something which the current source is a bit too vague on in my view - could have been called up but never played) Spiderone 15:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, NFOOTBALL does not cover futsal/beach soccer etc. and playing those sports at international level does not confer notability. GiantSnowman 16:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Important - RFC on NFOOTBALL

Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RFC: NFOOTY reform as this will have potentially huge ramifications on this WikiProject. GiantSnowman 09:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This was speedily withdrawn by the way. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This was not a neutral notification by the way. Levivich harass/hound 17:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was. GiantSnowman 18:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

MLS Cup Play-offs

Are MLS Cup Play-offs included in the infobox stats? And are they considered something seperate to normal MLS games in the career statistics section, or are they just mixed in the numbers with the other regular season MLS games? Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Regular season only. Playoffs not included in infobox. Go into separate 'Playoffs' column in career stats (or under 'Other' with a note). For example, Wayne Rooney or Jonathan Osorio. RedPatchBoy (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@RedPatchBoy: Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech support

Hi, I created a basic template cat here but something has gone wrong when I added it to Template:Miguel Muñoz Trophy; all articles now appear on the cat list, and when you check the articles they all appear to have those categories - but in edit mode, they don't. It's some kind of glitch but I can't work out what caused it or how to fix it. I even removed the cats from the Muñoz template, but the winners still appear on the Awards cat??! Could someone with wisdom in this area please have a look? Thanks. Oh happy new year all. Crowsus (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Crowsus: You have to put the categories within the noinclude section to prevent them appearing on the articles the template is transcluded on. I've done it for you. Number 57 23:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Dumb. Crowsus (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Status of "List of international goals scored by X" lists

So recently Bait30 has been nominating for deletion heaps of "List of international goals scored by X" lists with the claim Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.. I thought it would be a good idea to have a general consensus here instead of plenty of AfD's which might go in different directions based on participants. As far as I know, the current consensus is to have such articles for players who are topscorers of their country. I would suggest to challenge this consensus to expand the amount of such lists we allow. The status of topscorer of Kosovo (10) or of Faroe Islands (10) isn't the same as topscorer of Brazil (77), USWNT (184), or Canada's women (186). At the same time 8 players have scored 100 or more international goals while not being the topscorer of their country. Such a large amount of goals should be split out of the main article (per WP:SPINOUT). I think we should define that such lists should be applicable for top goalscorers of a country or over a certain amount of goals (which would justify splitting). We might also want to consider a minimum amount of goals so as not to have List of international goals scored by Vedat Muriqi or List of international goals scored by Rógvi Jacobsen which are 10 goals and barely would be a stub. All thoughts welcome :) --SuperJew (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, Govvy, Spiderone, Hmlarson, TimothyBlue, Ampimd, TompaDompa, Bring back Daz Sampson, HawkAussie, Mohanabhil, Ortizesp, Andrew Davidson, Jkudlick, ChrisTheDude, Bearian, REDMAN 2019, Mazewaxie, Nehme1499, Ken Tony Peter, Shahoodu, Macosal, The Rambling Man, Lembit Staan, Gidonb, Fredpernambucano, Struway2, and KingSkyLord: Pinging users who were involved in recent AfDs on the subject. --SuperJew (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@SuperJew: I have to say, I 100% agree with your idea, but I can't really do anything to help you. I'm not that experienced in this domain of establishing consensus. At least, you have my opinion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I think any footballer, male or female, that has scored 100 goals should qualify for such a list. It's a major achievement and, in almost every case, it would be necessary to separate it due to article size. I think, for a minimum number of goals as a top goalscorer, 50 goals seems appropriate but I'm happy to listen to arguments in support of a different minimum. Again, I think any footballer, male or female, that is or was the top goalscorer for their country and scored at least 50 goals should warrant a separate list. Spiderone 16:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There should be a minimum and I think WP:CRICKET have a unwritten guidance at Template:International cricket centuries where 20 seems to be the minimum. So there should probably be a minimum too. I'll start the bidding with 20 international goals but open if people want to go higher. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I personally think that if a player has scored more than 50 goals, the list would be too large for the main article. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I drew influence from List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals for my decision to go for 50 goals Spiderone 16:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Saying 'only top scorers should have separate article' is nonsense, because what happens when the record is broken - does the previous record holder's separate article suddenly become non notable? No, course not. Also, as mentioned above, why is the top scorer for e.g. Fiji notable but 50 goals scored by the fifth highest player in e.g. Sweden not? We need a minimum - I say 25. GiantSnowman 16:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with 25-50.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Splitting lists out of articles should be dependant on whats already on an article. We have WP:SPLITLIST and as noted there; Too much statistical data is against policy. Generally speaking and surprisingly, it's normally 40+ goal lists which do the most hurt to an articles data length. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever consensus for 25 to 50 goals. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on your comment here GiantSnowman, consider re-assessing or explaining your 14:30, December 15, 2020‎ entry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Alex Morgan. Hmlarson (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Have done, many thanks. GiantSnowman 17:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I generally agree that 25 minimum is sufficient, but should cases arise where a full article is warranted, WP:GNG still applies. Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I would say 50. But the player has to have already passed GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree with the minimum threshold being over 50 as there are currently 301 (male) footballers that have scored 30 or more international goals whereas there are 67 players who've scored 50+. Though for some of these articles the entire page may just consist of a list of goals rather than any extra prose (if that is an issue for people). Felixsv7 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(e/c) I'm open to any minimum, be it 20, 25, 40, 50, whatever. My only (biased) concern is with List of international goals scored by Hassan Maatouk, which is a FL I created. The guy scored 21 goals, and is Lebanon's top scorer. However, there is quite a bit of prose, so idk. I guess I just don't want that specific article deleted ahahah. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Maatouk hasn't scored 50 goals. But he is the country's all-time top scorer, which means he would meet the criteria so don't worry :). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
A minimum of 50 would also have excluded England's top scorer until a few years ago. On the other hand if a country has 20 players with over 50 international goals are they all notable? Perhaps there needs to be more flexible criteria than a simple threshold. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I would say that players who are the top scorer for their respective country and those that have scored 50+ goals but are not the top scorer for their country should be notable. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it should be a rule that either the top goal scorer (20+ goals) or having to score 50 goals is a good base mark for these lists. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad to see so much discussion here and an openness of mind :) Just wanted to clarify my original proposal. I was thinking the consensus would be any player who scored over X amount of goals or a player who is top scorer for their country, so long as the amount of goals scored is over Y. So for example if we decide X=50, Y=20: players such as Alex Morgan would qualify as she has scored over 50, while Hassan Maatouk would qualify as the top scorer of his country who scored over 20. At the same time in this example Vedat Muriqi and Rógvi Jacobsen wouldn't qualify (yet), despite being their country's top scorer, because they scored only 10 goals. Hope that makes my original meaning clearer. Of course people are welcome to contribute and suggest whichever direction seems right to them - I just wanted to clarify since some of the comments made me feel my meaning wasn't clear :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There should be due weight given to the article structure and strength whether if there is ample space in a players biography or whether it needs to be split out. Govvy (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here but I don't really have any strong feelings about any arbitrary cut-off point for number of goals. I'd prefer that any rule which does get ascension is not overtly sexist/discriminatory, unlike the longstanding dumpster fire at WP:FPL. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say get rid of the lot of them. Simply enumerating each goal makes for garbage content more suited for a fansite. This is the kind of content that WP:INDISCRIMINATE warns against. As an encyclopedia, we should aim to summarize, not enumerate (as I like to put it: write Climate of London, not List of rainy days in London). If we summarize this information using prose instead of exhaustively enumerating each example, there is no need for these lists, as the information can be contained in the articles about the footballers themselves (and indeed, that is often already the case). TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: If you want to get rid of those, then we may as get rid of the cricket's ones as well (unspoken rule critera of 20 centuries) if you feel that way then. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: I'm interested to know how you would summarise 100+ goals in a meaningful way? --SuperJew (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
That's the purpose of the WP:LEAD in the list article, so one way of doing it would be to write the lead as one would for the list but place it on the main article. Another way of doing it would be to emulate the article Cristiano Ronaldo, which has the statistics at Cristiano Ronaldo#International and prose discussing the goals in the greater context in which they occurred at Cristiano Ronaldo#International career. Either way, the list is unnecessary. TompaDompa (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately it boils down to coverage and if the subject of an individual's international goals is notable then a list of them is notable. In particular when main articles are huge, it's an easy decision to make a content fork. Making odd claims about rainy days in London is completely unhelpful, tangential and in no way related to the matter at hand. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The point is that summarizing with prose, including trends and discussing context makes for better content than merely listing examples, but I'm sure you understood that and just disagree. I'm not trying to say anything about the notability of the subject, but rather about the best way to present the information. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Well presentation can be adjusted, that doesn't call for "get rid of the lot of them". Perhaps you need to re-focus on the matter in hand. If you're not disputing that the international goals have individual notability then there's no reason to lose the lists at all. I'm sure you know that. I know you're a extreme WP:WIAFL criterion 3b advocate, but "get rid of the lot of them" is not helpful at all. And per the above discussion, this "carte blanche" approach impacts cricket (centuries, five-fors, etc), rugby (tries, caps, matches etc), and indeed is clearly not restricted to goals in football. Lists of international matches are clearly like "rainy days in London" so they'd need to go too. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's not conflate the collective notability of the goals with the notability of each individual goal. Anyway, the lists themselves are essentially raw data. Raw data does not make for quality content. Descriptive statistics (e.g. "Cristiano Ronaldo scored 102 goals in 170 appearances") can sometimes be better. Prose summaries with context are virtually always better. By replacing raw data with prose summaries, we improve the quality of the content. The raw data does have a place, but a Wikipedia article is not it. I am way less familiar with cricket and rugby than I am with football, so I'll reserve judgment there. TompaDompa (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Once again, fixing the lists by improving them is a perfectly apt alternative to "getting rid of the lot of them". Many of the lists I'm aware of aren't "raw data". Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with the art of the possible rather than just making blanket statements. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
What I would describe as raw data is for instance the table of goals at the WP:Featured list List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo. That list article of course also contains a prose summary in the WP:LEAD and some descriptive statistics, but the main piece of content—the table of goals—is raw data. The main article Cristiano Ronaldo—which is not a Wikipedia:Featured article or even a WP:Good article—contains a prose summary of the goals in the greater context in which they occurred, and also a briefer overview of the descriptive statistics. The content about the international goals at Cristiano Ronaldo is better than the content at List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo. We could of course improve the list article by making it resemble the relevant portions of the main article more closely, but I think that would be getting it backwards; we could instead take the best parts from the list articles (which would not include the raw data) and merge that content into the main articles about the respective footballers.
You seem to have taken great offence at my saying "get rid of the lot of them", so I apologize and will rephrase: we would be better off reworking the raw data into prose summaries and perhaps some brief descriptive statistics, and that content would be better placed at the main articles for the footballers (or a prose article called something along the lines of "International football career of [Name]", if the main article is prohibitively long) rather than at the current list articles. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, which is what I said all along. Appropriate content forks are fine. Content can always be improved. Deletion (which is the main topic here) is not the answer, but improving the prose in these lists probably is. It's quite proper to expect that when {{main}} is used that a summary of what you'll find in the main article. Again, this is trivial and can be implemented by literally anyone. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
While tables on their own do not constitute an article, if they are supported by prose it's ok. I don't see why you want to outright remove the table of goals. What do we achieve by deleting it? Who benefits from that? It's much more informative to have prose + table, rather than just prose. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. These list articles were created in almost all cases by forking out existing material from overly long biographies. This deliberately hasn't happened at articles which don't support a content fork suitably right now, e.g. Shinji Okazaki. So I'm not sure what the problem is. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
My argument would be that the raw data is low-quality content, and that articles can be improved both by introducing high-quality content and removing low-quality content. When an article gets too lengthy and there is excessively detailed low-quality content, one way of dealing with it is forking, but another is to simply remove that content outright. The latter option is in my view preferable in the long run. A case study of this is List of Black Panther box office achievements, which was forked from Black Panther (film) and eventually turned into a redirect to the main article without merging the content back (you can read a slightly longer summary which was also written by me at Talk:List of Black Panther box office achievements#RfC about redirecting); obviously deleting the excessive content from the start would have been better. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for tagging me! I support having these stand-alone lists for female and male soccer players who scored 100 and more international goals. For others, this information can be included in the main article. Rationale: I do not see the justification for a lower threshold for men, 100 is a recognizable number, and we should not have too many of these articles. gidonb (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
So, only two male footballers would have such a list? Seems too little. Nehme1499 (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
User:Nehme1499. Exactly, two male players would have a stand-alone-list for now! Plus 17 women. Others can have a list in their article. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
You have to bear in mind, though, that female international players play far more matches than their male counterparts. Take a look at Cap (sport)#Association football - the all-time female record holder has nearly double the number of caps of the all-time male record holder. There could therefore be a case for men to have a lower benchmark based on the fact that female players will naturally score a lot more goals given that they have a far greater opportunity to do so........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
So you're talking underlying causes for the goal differential and I never doubted that reasons exist. That's interesting but no so relevant to our decision. I start with the FACT of 100+ goal-scoring players 17 are women and 2 men. I am not totally against different standards for men and women. The question is really whether there is a strong reason. My conclusion is that the top scorer list is fair at 50+ and 100+ for men and women respectively. These two lists are set up gender-specific and need to contain sufficient interesting information. I disagree that there is gender-based justification for a different spinoff standard of the individual goal list. It's "a" biography of "a" player that does or does not include "a" similar list. gidonb (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should use SuperJew's criteria: 20+ goals for a nation's top scorer, 50+ goals for anyone else (we could use different criteria for women, such as 40+ and 100+ respectively). Nehme1499 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I was just giving an example. I was just thinking now maybe we'd want to say 25 (as half of)? I'm not sure though if we should have separate criteria for men and women. I understand ChrisTheDude's point that women play on average more games, but A) I think the main argument for having these lists separately from the main article is dues to size and splitting out to keep the main article manageable and B) does that mean that we should have separate criteria for other categories as well? For example should players from African or Oceanian countries also have lower benchmarks (due to their confederations on average having less competitions, games in competitions due to less association members, and less slots in international competitions)? --SuperJew (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Having read this, figured I'd chime in with my thought. I agree with some of the posts saying that different standards for men and women, simply due to numbers of matches. Comparing goals scored in men and women's football is like comparing apples and pears (not quite apples and oranges) - similar but the number of opportunities is a relevant and significant factor. With that I think 50 and 100 are reasonable, maybe make it 75 and 100 if you want to limit it more. The 20+ if a nation's top scorer, I'm not as in favour of. I think we should just have the one standard. That could open up too much issue, for example then the record's are eventually broken. For example, right now Dwayne De Rosario is Canada's top scorer with 22 goals in 81 appearances. His record is going to be broken soon by Jonathan David who has 11 goals in 12 appearances and is only 20 years old. So DeRo's article would be valid now, but in 2 years it gets deleted once the record is broken? Now, I recognize the comment earlier about Hasson Matouck's article, so my recommendation would be to say make the lists for only 50M/100F goals and then have a grandfather clause for top scorer's with 20 goals, those articles that exist and meet that criteria and were created prior to 2021 are exempt, any new articles after need to meet the 50/100 rule. Do grandfather clause rules exist or have any precedence on Wikipedia? RedPatchBoy (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your De Rosario example, I believe that any player that was formerly their country's top scorer still qualifies for one of these articles, hence why we have List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton Spiderone 23:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, former top scorers should also be included. (Though that might cause a issue in 50 years time). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I also agree, as long as there is a minimum goal tally (20, 25, 50, 1000, whatever), otherwise people could start creating these lists for the first goalscorer, the first to reach 2 goals, then 3, etc. I don't see what issues it could cause, as I doubt it's going to be easier to score goals in 50 years compared to now. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I just want to say that I'm onboard with the 50 goal minimum and 20 or 25 goal minimum for top goalscorers. Also, I agree with Spiderone and Redman about articles for top goalscorers who were overtaken.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 04:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Not a fan of these lists in general. I can honestly say they are very crufty cruft. There's little to no functional content, it often being just a sequence of dates and team names. If they are part of a broader article about the players international career I can kind of get behind them. However, what is to stop such a list for every domestic goal (not aware of notability being diminished for only being the top scorer of the Premier League of all time)? Koncorde (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


Summary & consensus

It seems to me from the comments that there is a consensus to support articles for any player who passes a threshold of goals, even if they aren't the top goalscorer for their country. Secondly there seems to be a consensus to have a minimum amount of goals to warrant such an article for a topscorer of their nation. The question now is what the threshold and minimum amount should be. I suggest we have here a listing to have it in summary. The options that have been brought up are:

  • threshold: 100, 50, 40
  • minimum: 50, 25, 20

My thoughts are 50 threshold (per our page of male footballers with 50 and above) and 25 minimum (half the threshold).

Another question is if the criteria should be the same for men and women. Personally I think not, as the splitting is based per size of the player's article, not the amount of articles created.

GiantSnowman or any other admin or user with experience in this - what is needed officially for consensus? (I'm asking since I've seen discussions that a user claims that there is consensus and other users rebutted them saying "that's not how consensus works") --SuperJew (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You shouldn't run a minimum too maximum, you need to find the average and stylise the document size and status of that player. Often or not, but from what I've seen, a lot of players average around 30 to 40 goals in an international career on regular duty. I consider 40+ breaking the average. That's just my perspective. Govvy (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS applies. GiantSnowman 15:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I would still push for a hard border of 50. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I think 50 is a reasonable minimum, still for all top scorers or former top scorers - male or female. 100 threshold for everyone else - same for male and female footballers. Spiderone 19:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Again you make no sense with your reply, that could mean anything what you wrote above. WP:CONSENSUS is a whole article on different ideas towards consensus. You really should avoid replying with policy docs, etc, and just wrote your coherent thoughts. Besides, I don't want to be rude but it feels like you guys are just shoving numbers down without understanding the numbers, you really should be careful here. Anyway, we should ask PeeJay what he thinks as he is a stats man. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I was asked "what is needed officially for consensus?" I provided a link to the relevant policy on how consensus is determined. What's your problem? GiantSnowman 10:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No hard minimum, judge every list on its merits. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I appear to be a bit late to the party (I spent time with my family largely unplugged from the internet), but I hope it's not too late to offer my thoughts. I do agree that stand-alone lists should have some minimum threshold to be met, and obviously that is what we are trying to decide. I think a minimum threshold of 30 goals is not too much to ask for current and former national team top scorers, and a minimum of 60 for anyone who has never been their country's top scorer. This could result in some previously deleted lists undergoing undeletion review, but having specific criteria will enable everyone to absolutely say "Yes, this belongs" or "No, this doesn't belong." — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Cameron Carter-Vickers

Just worth pointing out that two anonymous IP addresses are in dispute of using "American professional football player" or "American professional soccer player". Some of you discussed about the player at this page where near the end, the latter quoted text should be used. Those two IP addresses are reverting each other a few times I'd noticed over two days. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Both users warned and page protected. Let me know if it continues. GiantSnowman 16:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Users also "active" at Hernanes. Kante4 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Can't we just protect both pages? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I too have also noticed there are plenty of edits on the Hernanes page as well. As far as I'm aware, they are used by no other than two people who have reverted each others for months on end. For this page, temporary protection is certainly not effective anymore to prevent those two to get the attention that they want and receive same old warnings that they won't take note of properly. At some point the inevitable of indefinate semi-protection will be used from one of the admins who will do that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Iggy the Swan: Can I take that as a request for indef semi-protection for Hernanes? I will gladly request it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Just the right time to think about that. Thumbs up from me. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Still not done here it seems, StarryNightSky11 (talk · contribs) has now picked up doing the same thing over at Carter-Vickers' page. They're right on the verge of 3RR, if not over it, would someone like to warn/possibly block them? Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that these two are going to create accounts and continue this? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Player full name in the infobox

Hello. I have a question.
When a player's full name is what is used normally as to describe the player, do we still put it in the infobox? Basically, I made the article Soumaïla Ouattara. (This issue has come across me a lot but this is an example.) His FULL NAME is exactly this: Soumaïla Ouattara. What I don't know is if I should still include a place in the infobox called "full name" with Soumaïla Ouattara, because it is already clear that his full name is just his regular name used to describe him. Sorry if I am not explaining this well. Basically I want to know if we can omit the "full name" part in the infobox if a player's full name is simply the name of the article. 14:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is a source which confirms that is his full name, then add it to the fullname= parameter in the infobox with the reference. This prevents editors from adding false full names, as often happens. GiantSnowman 14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: What do you mean by "confirms" the full name? And still, my question persists: do I have to add the full name parameter in the infobox if the full name is just the normal media name and no source says that it is his specific full name? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Again - if you have a reliable source which verifies that X is a player's full name, then add that name with the reference to the fullname= parameter in the infobox, even if that is the same as the article name. GiantSnowman 15:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Dominik Szoboszlai

How should we deal with the divisions in the club stats table? Both the Austrian 1st league and the German 1st league are called Bundesliga. Should the Austrian one be called "Austrian Football Bundesliga"? Should one be Austrian Bundesliga and the other one German Bundesliga? Or Bundesliga (Austria) and Bundesliga (Germany)? Or just keep it as it is? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"Bundesliga and "Austrian Bundesliga": English speakers usually mean the German one when they say "Bundesliga" – which is also why it is at Bundesliga. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with this. GiantSnowman 21:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Sheffield United task force

Err since when did we have club specific task forces like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Sheffield United task force? GiantSnowman 23:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since 2006 it looks like for the Sheffield United one. But I agree I don't think it's needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There's 10 total: Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Celtic, DC United, Liverpool, Manchester United, San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Sheffield United, and Sheffield Wednesday. I wonder if any are abandoned like the Real Madrid one we deleted a while ago. RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm a member of the Liverpool one. It used to be fairly active but seems to have quietened down. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I think they should be deleted. What purpose do they serve? GiantSnowman 14:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Coppa Italia top scorers

Having a navigation template for top level leagues is one thing, but I think that cup competitions such as {{Coppa Italia top scorers}} is too far. Thoughts? GiantSnowman 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple of more (Germany, Spain...) here. Kante4 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there even an award for being topscorer in the cup. I don't think there is in Germany. Seems like just one more stat. I don't think it needs a navbox. -Koppapa (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Also the cup topscorers usually score about a handful of goals - not such a notable achievement honestly --SuperJew (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I would say no to domestic cups, maybe international cups (WC, Euro, etc) could be okay. However, given all teams do not play even close to the same number of matches, and many top teams enter late in the tournament, not all is equal. Theoretically, in the FA Cup, a tenth tier team player could be the top scorer if he scores a bunch of goals in the first couple of rounds against other low level teams (unless we only start counting from the 'Proper' rounds not the 'Qualifying rounds') — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedPatchBoy (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Logo is needed for Växjö United FC. If someone could help upload a logo that'd be nice. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I added it. If you find more that need logos here is how you can upload them. 1) Save the logo as an image on your computer 2) Click 'Upload File' on the main Wikipedia toolbar on the left 3) Select "Upload locally to Wikipedia" for non-free image (the smaller button under the main one) 4) Choose the file and fill in the blanks with stars in Steps 1 and 2 5) For Step 3, click the second option "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." 6) Select the option "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." 7) State where you got the image from. I usually use the team's twitter or facebook page or the team main website and paste the url, and fill in the other Starred boxes. 8)Click uplaod and wait 10ish seconds 9) It will give you the name of the file to paste in the infobox (make sure to include the jpg/png/etc when you copy it ex) File:Vaxjo_United_logo.png (you can omit the underscores and the 'File:', that doesn't affect it, it's just easier to copy and paste with them) RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If the logo appears really large in the infobox add "|upright=0.8" in the source text, that will shrink it (I usually use between 0.6 and 0.8, depending on how large the image is)RedPatchBoy (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@RedPatchBoy: Wow, thank you so much for these directions! I will try this out myself another time when I need it. Thanks! Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Manager template

How come there is no manager article template for this wikiproject? I understand it's just what happens to a player article after retirement, but I think we should have a proper definition of what a manager article should look like after a player retires. I am willing to help create a manager template if neeeded. The Lamb Sauce (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not needed. GiantSnowman 15:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Friendly international matches notability

Are friendly international matches considered important as to which a player that appeared in such a match can have an article on Wikipedia by meeting WP:NFOOTBALL? Basically, Soumaïla Ouattara has made an appearance in a friendly international match for Burkina Faso against Libya... and I don't know if this makes him notable enough for an article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

His time at Ajax Cape Town makes him notable anyway according to this. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: Yes, friendly internationals are no different than competitive matches for NFOOTY, as long as it is full international match ("Tier 1") recognised by FIFA. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
To @S.A. Julio: thank you. To @REDMAN 2019: Do you want to create the article? Just wondering, because I might make a draft if you already have not started making the article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: I haven't got round to starting a draft yet, so feel free to create one if you want to. Just make sure to let me know so I don't end up making a second! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: Hey, I made a draft at Draft:Soumaïla Ouattara. You can help me add to the draft if you want, but I hope you don't mind if I do most of the work for the creation of the article.
Edit: I already finished the article. By the way, happy new year! Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Paul Vaurie: Happy New Year to you to! Thanks for notifying me, and well done on the article. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@REDMAN 2019: Thanks! Happy editing! Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@S.A. Julio: Is there a list anywhere of national teams that are considered "tier 1" by FIFA? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tier 1 would be matches between two senior main teams (ie no teams like England C, Scotland B, Catalonia, or youth teams) RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately FIFA don't have a readily-available list of tier 1 games. You can use national-football-teams.com, which is arguably the most exhaustive list (from 1993 to now). For games where at least one of the two teams is European, you can use eu-football.info. Also, eloratings.net have their own list (however, some are non-FIFA games). Otherwise, you can search in RSSSF.com (see France, for example). Nehme1499 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Just had a peek at the France example, and funnily enough seems there most recent match was a 4-22 loss to Sweden ;) Always make sure to apply WP:COMMONSENSE. --SuperJew (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Football match infobox

I'm looking for opinions on what should and shouldn't be included in this infobox. It isn't the most bloated infobox I've ever seen, but perhaps some changes could be made. Infinite mission (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

FFF profiles are gone!

I have sadly noticed that all links to FFF profiles for French national team players are gone! All of them are redirects to the fff.fr site. Go look on Kylian Mbappé#External links. What do we do? Do we use the Wayback machine for every single player to get the archive links? Or do we remove FFF player profiles altogether? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not that they're gone, they probably reorganized the site so all the urls changed. I've seen this happen with other references (articles and profiles). Mbappe profile exists at this link now RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: Alright. But that creates another issue: the template needs to be fixed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Solution A, wayback machine, solution B, find the new url and check the id is different or not. Solution C combine both and create new template for the new url. Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: @Nehme1499: @Robby.is.on: @Koncorde: @Matthew hk: I pinged some users I know. So, thoughts? What do we do? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
We calm down, it's Christmas Day! Then we take a proper look when everyone is a little less full of egg nog, Turkey and whatever dessert and booze they have lying around. Solutions provided at this point may be more than a little alcohol infused. Koncorde (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Have the profiles moved URLs, or been deleted entirely? GiantSnowman 08:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Moved URLs. AFAIK, they're all still there, e.g. Eddy Gnahoré was at https://www.fff.fr/equipes-de-france/tous-les-joueurs/fiche-joueur/2308120760-eddy-gnahore- and is now at https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/7267-gnahore-eddy/fiche.html cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Then a WP:BOTREQUEST can replace the URLs? GiantSnowman 11:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I guess? Or maybe we can do it manually... all I know is that we must do something, not nothing . Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a fluent writer of French could email the FFF and ask them nicely to add redirects from the old links to the new? as many websites do as a matter of course when restructuring, to avoid irritating their users. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a simple url change that a bot can handle. The crucial part is changed from 2308120760-eddy-gnahore- to 7267-gnahore-eddy. It might be possible to rearrange the name part but the number part is different. Hopefully FFF will provide redirects but otherwise I think it would have to be manual. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I've changed the link in {{FFF male player}} to use webarchive.org as a temporary solution. The link in Kylian Mbappé now goes to an archived version of the page. Or perhaps the original link should be remain at the FFF site and an archived link also given, e.g. (archived at Kylian Mbappé). —  Jts1882 | talk  14:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest the template points to the old broken link (ready to be fixed) and includes a link to the archive. GiantSnowman 16:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: @Jts1882: @Struway2: What do we do now with the NEW profiles? Do we just not bother with them? Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman:. Yes, I agree with pointing to the broken link if the content is the same. It might be best to wrap {{cite web}} in the template so |url-status= can be used to choose the primary link.
@Paul Vaurie: The template uses Wikidata to retrieve the ID by default. It's not clear if Wikidata will modify the existing FFF male player property (P4883) or if a new property will get created. This will need to be watched. In cases where the ID is given as a template parameter if might be possible to check for form and set the link accordingly. This search shows the uses of the template and the ID is used exclusively as the number (the text in the link is unnecessary). In the new version the name is part of the ID (e.g. 7267-gnahore-eddy so this could be the basis of the check. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the template to check the format of the ID. A number is assumed to be old style and outputs the old style URL and adds a link to archive.org. Otherwise the new URL is used. The cases I checked worked, but I'd appreciate someone checking further.
@MYS77: When I made the change yesterday, I inadvertently reverted your edits to use the new style URL. It should now be working with new style IDs added with |id=. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jts1882: Your change still displays a new format string at the end of the link. I would recommend taking a little more time to fix it, since my previous version was already using the new links correctly. MYS77 ✉ 21:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Your change fixed the new links, but did nothing to handle all the existing links, many of which rely on Wikidata. Any fix now is probably temporary and will need changing if Wikidata is updated. I also note that ids on Wikidata often take the wrong form. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you all found a solution? Just curious, because I am not experienced in this wikidata and template editing business. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've done what I can. The behaviour of the template is now (or should be) as follows:
  1. If |id= is a number (this should be the old-style id as defined for the Wikidata property) then link to the old FFF url and add link to archive.org. The reasoning for leaving the dead link is that FFF might, in future, provide a redirect.
  2. Otherwise link to new site format (this should be a new-style id as an id of form number-word-word fails the number test in #1)
Not ideal, but I think this is all we can do. If Wikidata changes, we may need a further update.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jts1882 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Should this edit be restored

The Spanish football league system article has been changed in format. All the information is still correct, it was just changed in appearance (and occasional words in Spanish). Should it be restored to this format? RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean this format? Nehme1499 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the one you posted. I had both tabs open must have copied the wrong one. I'll fix mine with the correct link RedPatchBoy (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the way it looked before was cleaner, and more in line with most league system articles. Still, I think the page needs a bit of clean-up in general. Nehme1499 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:National association football team results by team

There are multiple formats being used:

  1. Country national football team results (2020–29)
  2. Country national football team results (2020–present)
  3. Country national football team results – 2020s

Which should be used? I would go with number 2, as 1 can't be used per MOS:DATERANGE, and we use brackets to disambiguate not emdashes. So, we would have, for example, (2010–2019) and (2020–present), not (2010–19) and (2020–29). Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just copied the style from the featured article Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results when I've created and updated similar articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean, which format should we use for the article titles? Nehme1499 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've been clearer. For naming articles like this I copy that featured article. I figure that because it's a featured article then that's the quality of article we're striving to meet and that also applies to the title. And if MOS:DATERANGE means we shouldn't use 2020–29 then use 2020–present instead. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Professional status of Scottish second tier

Further input/sources are please needed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Scottish Championship. GiantSnowman 16:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

PC Fútbol database as a source

Hi, yesterday I made a few additions on Carles Busquets based in the information compiled in the PC Fútbol 6.0 database. They have been deleted because, I shall quote the message I received, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Carles Busquets article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article.

I can understand because I think this Spanish software is little-known in other countries. Anyway, while it wasn't as good as FIFA as a simulator it stood out because of its managerial gameplay and its database. Here are a couple articles that talk about it:

  • Even Rafa Benítez used Dinamic Multimedia's video game when he managed Real Madrid B because it allowed him to take notes of his players and show them the tactics in the screen so his players grasped better the concepts. [In the database there was a low tab where every user could write a paragraph with their impressions on each player's performance in every match of that season's campaign] [...] Journalist Alberto Adeva had worked for As and he was one of the chosen staff by journalist Gaby Ruiz in order to produce a double task: this football-themed magazine, similar to a Liga annual [that was included with the game] and the PC Futbol database, the stone upon which much of the game relied. Because indeed, the player's ratings were decided by a team of sports journalists. PC Fútbol: The day when Víctor was a better shooter than Seedorf. Revista Líbero, issue 17, summer 2016.
  • The database gathered the information provided by journalists, a documentation staff that started with a single person but ended having over ten editors. Pablo Aranda, Óscar García y Alberto Adeva were in the leading positions, working in the game to evaluate all football teams. [...] Jourón remembers that some managers used the PC Fútbol database when they played against other teams "because there was a part of the database that was virtual for the game, but there was also another journalistic which talked about how were the players, their character, where they played, their career, their history and many teams used it as a basis to know how were the opponents". Marcos Jourón, one of the main developers of the legendary PC Fútbol. Vandal, 16 May 2020.

The virtual part of the database were the in-game ratings. The anecdote told in the first article is significant: when Real Madrid's Víctor Sánchez del Amo visited the Dinamic Multimedia staff he allegedly raised his shooting ratings in Adeva's computer himself, claiming that he had a better shot than his teammate Clarence Seedorf. The staff complied, though they still lowered it so it wasn't as good as Raúl or Mijatović's when they released PC Fútbol 6.0.

The journalistic part was the database section in the menu, which was basically a synthesis of the sport journalism's evaluation at the time along with statistics. Retrospectively the PC Fútbol databases provide altogether what's probably the most balanced, focused and approachable outlook on the 1990s Spanish league players' season-by-season performance and playing profiles. It's not online sourcing, but it's not like every source needs to be available online, does it? It's pretty much like sourcing an issue of a printed newspaper.

Anyway there's a Youtube user that has recorded and uploaded the PC Fútbol databases, so in case you want to see for yourself how they were, you can check it. This is FC Barcelona's 1997-98 database (with Dinamic folded since 2001, I believe PC Fútbol has been abandonware for a long time, so it's okay to link to it, right?) which I used for Busquets' article. His entry is in the first seconds of the video. Carxofes fregides (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this matter? I'd like to know if I can use these databases as a source or if the edits still are going to be deleted. Carxofes fregides (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, you cannot use a video game as a source. GiantSnowman 19:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not a video game. It's a real football database compiled by professionals of journalism. The fact that it was packed in a video game doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source. Carxofes fregides (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear, what kind of information do you want to source using PC Fútbol 6.0? Height and DoB? Nehme1499 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No. From these paragraphs (I'll translate them the best I can):
Technical qualities: Busquets' performances are marked by irregularity and uncertainty. You can't know if you are going to see the agile and feline goalkeeper, able to make magnificent saves, or the insecure goalkeeper that can make a blunder at any time. Regardless, he has always shown confidence in his capabilities and has tried to free himself from the tremendous pressure under which he's subjected in every match. Busquets is a cold and rather self-confident goalkeeper, traits that sometimes backfire and have given him a reputation of being unsecure and unreliable. He is probably the best Spanish goalkeeper at handling the ball with his feet, but sometimes his confidence [in this skill] makes things excessively complicated for himself. Very fast in exits and with great agility and reflexes under the post, he usually rejects balls instead of blocking them, a circunstance that increases his reputation of insecurity.
Anecdotes: * He entered FC Barcelona in October 1981 coming from Ciudad Badía in 1981, when he was still a child. * He had his official debut with Barcelona in the 1991 Cup Winners' Cup final, in Rotterdam against Manchester United, which won 2-1. * The French journal L'Équipe nicknamed him "the goalkeeper with no hands". * His contrast lasts until June 1999 y his release fee is 800 million pesetas. * He had his Primera División debut on 7 November 1993, in a Barcelona-Racing (2-1). * Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger are his favorite actors. * In some interviews he has admitted that Kim Bassinger is one of the persons that he would like to meet the most. * He is fond of the music of Simple Minds, Dire Strait and Border 4. * He claims that he plays with tracksuit trousers because because he finds it more comfortable than playing with shorts. * He started playing football as a forward, but in a game the goalkeeper was injured and he replaced him under the post, a position that he didn't leave from then on. * He collects football shirts and key-chains. * His major childhood idol was Michelangelo. * He likes spending his free time with his family. * He claims that nobody faces the goal like Romario.
Previous season: Past season he only played four League matches, all of them complete (360 minutes). He was absent for seven games due to injury, but had he been fit he would only have played one of these games. Specifically against Atlético de Madrid, a match that couldn't be played by Vítor Baia, who was in a national team meeting nor Lopetegui, who was injured. It was young Arnau from the farm team the one who ended up defending Barcelona's goal that day. For Busquets, the 96-97 season will remain as one of the worst at a personal level since he belongs to the blue and red first squad. After being a first choice player in the two previous leagues and enjoying Johan Cruyff's trust he became a permanent placeholder in the bench, when not in the stands, practically not entering in Bobby Robson's plans. The English coach showed very little esteem for Busquets' qualities and one of the first petitions he made when he arrived to Barcelona was to sign a goalkeeper. With Vítor Baia as indisputed first choice, Busi had to settle for taking Barça's goal when the Portuguese goalkeeper wasn't in conditions of doing it.
I extracted the following:
* << Busquets, who had been initially a forward in his beginnings, excelled in footplay, and this side of his playing style stood out so much that he was known as the player with no hands. At the same time he was regarded as an insecure goalkeeper. The PC Fútbol 6.0 database, while praising his agility and reflexes, commented that his performances were marked by irregularity and uncertainty and that his coldness and self-assurance sometimes backfired while his reliance on rejecting balls instead of blocking them increased the climate of insecurity. >>
* << He played with tracksuit trousers, which he found more comfortable than shorts. >> Carxofes fregides (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, you can check the software's analysis in footage like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htiF_Nu6_QM Carxofes fregides (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It does, in the same way we do not use Football Manager as a source. GiantSnowman 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I know, Football Manager doesn't include anything like this. If I was talking about including here the PC Fútbol ratings as real life facts that would be a fair comparison, but I'm not. PC Fútbol was a software that included a video game, rather than a conventional video game. The database section is simply an electronic La Liga encyclopedia unrelated to the gameplay and with no ratings or anything like that. Just real-life statistics and real-life commentary, analysis and annecdotes. If it had been published as a printed annual there wouldn't have been a need to change a comma. Carxofes fregides (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't see how a video of some unknown dude scrolling through a computer game could be considered a verifiable or reliable source (see WP:RSPYT. Spike 'em (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It's both reliable and verifiable - just get a PC Fútbol 6.0 copy. And I insist, he's not scrolling through a video game, he's scrolling through a football encyclopedia packed in a football software that also includes a video game. It's completely different. Carxofes fregides (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Wouold also say it is not reliable and should not be used. Kante4 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with this, if we ignore the fact that its attached to a game and consider it something like a 'La Liga Encarta': a turn-of-the-millennium computerised database compiled by 'proper' staff as opposed to a Wiki or other user-input approach. What I would say is, the info for Busquets is pretty trivial about his playing style, is there no other source you can find with the same info? There'd be some funny looks if someone cited Encarta in 2021 as I would have thought almost everything on it would be available from elsewhere. Crowsus (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Runners-up for a super cup

How come we don't include runner-up honours for super cups? For example, we never include "UEFA Super Cup runner-up: 2019–20" (or any other super cup). Is there a reason for this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

For losing every game of a tournament? No media ever said a played won a runner-up title in a Super Cup. -Koppapa (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Koppapa: I guess you can look at it glass half-empty. I looked at it the way that they came second in the tournament. Good point. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 African nations championship

Hello. Can someone help in moderating the discussion being made on 2020 African Nations Championship? Due to a less number of page watchers, so far a conclusion has not reached with the tournament just starting in the next 5 days. The discussion is being held about "Should group table templates be created and each group should have a separate page or not"?--Anbans 585 (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Alfie Devine

Should the article be moved to draft-space? Technically he doesn't pass NFooty as Marine isn't a fully-pro club. So... Govvy (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Leave it in mainspace. Might fail NFOOTBALL but will likely pass GNG in the near future, if he doesn't already, with all the increasing coverage. I googled him earlier and there was quite a bit, and that was from before he even played/scored. GiantSnowman 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Leave it in mainspace. Him being the youngest player to ever play for Tottenham will be considered noteworthy. I expect there will be quite a bit of coverage about this match in particular, in addition to Devine's debut so plenty of GNG will come out about him. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Coverage for being youngest scorer for Spurs means he seems likely to pass GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Dominik Szoboszlai - part 2

Following our previous discussion regarding the usage of Austrian Bundesliga / Bungesliga etc. at Dominik Szoboszlai, a relentless (dynamic) IP keeps removing Austrian from "Austrian Bundesliga" (example). Discussing with him would be useless, as his IP constantly changes. Maybe a page protection is needed? What's the best course of action to take? Nehme1499 (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert, warn, and report to WP:AIV and/or WP:RFPP if it continues. I have protected for 3 days in the meantime. GiantSnowman 12:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted and warned too many times - however, as the IP keeps changing, reporting to AIV or RFPP is useless. Thanks for the page protection. Nehme1499 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Without warnings on IP pages it makes it much harder for admins to justify taking action - and RFPP is still effective against IP hoppers. GiantSnowman 12:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing footballer profiles on different websites

Hello, another question. I have noticed that the standard way to site websites such as National Football Teams, Global Sports Archive, WorldFootball.net, Soccerway, Soccerbase, FootballDatabase.eu, and other websites in player biographies is by inserting a "basic form" citation and filling out the template with the ID for the player profile. This is clear and evident for websites that have templates for player profiles like the ones I just listed. The question is, how do we do it for websites with player profiles that do not have such templates? For example, FBref.com and FootballCritic do not have such templates (or perhaps I just don't know them.) The question is, if I want to include a player profile from FootballCritic, would I create a "website" citation and fill out the url, title, access date & etc or would I create a "basic form" citation and write 'Player Name at FootballCritic' with an external site link? If the better option is the second option, then I suggest templates should be made for other websites such as FBref.com, FootballCritic, BeSoccer (these are just some I came across, but there are many more that I have not checked.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am doubtful that FBref and FootballCritic are reliable sources. GiantSnowman 13:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: I knew you were going to say something like that. If you want to argue the reliability of the sources, maybe we should make a list of sources that are reliable for player profiles somewhere? It would certainly be helpful. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
You mean something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links? GiantSnowman 14:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
FBref is in the list you linked to GiantSnowman ;) --SuperJew (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, added here in November by @Gasheadsteve: - be interested to know what makes it reliable before I remove it... GiantSnowman 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It says on FBref's front page that it's the soccer football branch of Sports Reference LLC, and that the football data is supplied by Data Sports Group, which is good enough for me. A list of accepted reliable sources would be good, though. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links is explicitly not restricted to RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Templates can be created for any source but they are only really useful when the source is widely used. They then provide the possibility of general fixes if the website changes the link infrastructure. If there are only a handful of uses then references using {{cite web}} can easily be changed manually and a template is not needed. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Les Dicker

I've only just come across on the Spurs website that he passed away last month. I've added a few updates, but if anyone wants to give a good cleanup please do. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Linking seasons in the honours section

How do we link specific seasons in the honours section when no individual articles are made for that specific tournament? Here is where I am coming from: in the article Soumaïla Ouattara, the Coupe du Faso is a trophy the player has won. He won it in 2018–19, but there is no individual article for the 2018–19 Coupe du Faso (at least on the English Wikipedia). What I am wondering is whether I or not I should be linking this competition somewhere (whether I should just leave it as a text without a wikilink), or whether I should link it to somewhere else (I have found two potential destinations, dilemma here too.) Say the answer is link it somewhere, the question is: do I link it to a winners/past finals section of the main cup article or do I link it to that specific tournament if there is page about that specific tournament season on another Wikipedia like for example the French Wikipedia (if there is a page there)? And if there isn't a page on another Wikipedia, do I not link or do I link to the winners section? I am not trying to sound too demanding but I would really hope the person responding does two things: respond to each of my questions individually, and please remember to ping me. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:REDLINKS applies. GiantSnowman 13:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Thanks, GS. I'm sorry... I completely forgot about red links. I just don't use them very often so I didn't remember this. What if an article does not merit an article on the English Wikipedia but has one on another Wikipedia (if this makes sense)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I personally use {{ill}} in those cases. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Do you think using {{ill}} is appropriate in this scenario? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

B team order

Hello. I have a dilemma. I do not know if in my draft Draft:Sébastien Cibois, I should put "Brest B" or "Brest" first.
(Please look at the draft's infobox) For Paris Saint-Germain B, I know it should come first because the player played for PSG B before playing for PSG's first team. But for Brest, the player joined Brest in 2020, but his first game was for Brest B. So I do not know how to order them. I personally think it should be Brest first then Brest B, because the player signed for Brest and not for Brest B, but ended up playing for Brest B afterwards anyways. Could I get a response on this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In that situation put the Brest B team first, given he played for them first. GiantSnowman 18:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If he signed a senior contract, I would put the senior team first. --SuperJew (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: @SuperJew: This is exactly my dilemma. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm unsure on how it works in France, but in Italy (where only Juventus have a B team), a player doesn't sign a contract for Juventus U23: he signs for Juventus. It's under Juventus' discretion to then send him to their B team or not. It's not like a player signs for Juventus U23, then signs for Juventus (or vice-versa). So GiantSnowman's criteria is the most reasonable to me. Nehme1499 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If a player signed for the club but only plays for the B or C team, we would not add the A team in the infobox... GiantSnowman 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@SuperJew: Why not? They are still contracted to the senior team. On the same coin would you remove Christian Vieri's period at Sampdoria from the infobox? Or Peter Crouch's period at Spurs? Or Lutz Pfannenstiel's periods at Wimbledon, Nott Forest, Haka, and Huddersfield? --SuperJew (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. By your logic every player who plays for only B teams (and there will be plenty of them around!) should double the size of the infobox to add unnecessary '0' stats for the parent club. Nonsense. GiantSnowman 22:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
We already had this (way too long) discussion a few months ago; I don't remember if a consensus was reached (we discussed about the usage of arrows or not, etc.). Nehme1499 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: The infobox should reflect the player's career. If a player signed a senior contract with club X but did not play in the end for the senior team, there should be a line in the infobox with that. Having '0' stats is not unnecessary - it shows the player was contracted but didn't play. --SuperJew (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Aren't all seniors contracts in Europe signed with the 'club' and then the players can slide between the A/B/C teams essentially at will (which differs from the US/Canada where players get signed specifically to an A or B team contract and have to be 'loaned' to the B team), as in players sign a 'Real Madrid contract' not a 'Real Madrid Castilla contract'. I would only add the B team stats if they only ever played for the B team. If they played for the A team in a Cup match, then I'd put 0s (maybe if they made the bench for league), because then they'd have 'made the A team' at least. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatchBoy: I agree with what you're saying. But I think we should shift the debate back to whether Cibois should have "Brest B" or "Brest" listed first. In this scenario, we can all agree that both should be listed in the infobox. The debate is whether the first appearance for one of the teams or the fact he signed with the A team is more important in determining which is put first in the infobox.
Personally, I agree with SuperJew's statement saying that if he signed a senior contract, the A team should be listed first. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think my comment goes hand in hand with this. What I mean is that since the 'senior contract' allows them to play with A or B, put whichever they play for first. By the same token, he would have played for PSG B on a PSG contract. So just like PSG B being first, Brest B should be first. RedPatchBoy (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. As RedPatchBoy says, it's not a matter of "if he signed a senior contract". The contract he signs isn't "senior" or "youth" or "reserve" or whatever, it's a contract by Brest. Every single Brest B player signed a contract with Brest, no-one signed a contract with Brest B as no such contract exists. So, the team with whom he debuts first goes above the other. Nehme1499 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting - it sounds as if it works differently in different places. In Australia the players sign senior (or scholarship) contracts with the first team, but can also join the youth side (and perhaps later sign a senior contract if/when promoted to the first team). --SuperJew (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this is not like Australia. As I said, adding the 'A' team to the infobox for every player who has only played for the B team is ridiculous. GiantSnowman 10:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That is your opinion GiantSnowman. --SuperJew (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, which reflects how we have always operated in the 15 years I have been an editor. The only person suggesting otherwise is you. GiantSnowman 12:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In France, and only in cases where the A team is in Ligue 1, Ligue 2 or one of the few pro teams in Championnat National, it is possible for the player to sign a contract specifically with either the A team or the B team as the professional team is a separate entity to the rest of the club. In both cases players are eligible to play for the other team. A professional contract (contrat pro) can only be signed with the A team. There are several instances of young players signing contracts with B teams of Ligue 1 clubs and never making it to the professional team. Regards Gricehead (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
More than several, I would say! I remember editing dozens. GiantSnowman 12:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Gricehead's comment is important to this discussion. I have personally spoken to some players of the PSG B team in the past (I did an interview with one) and now that I reflect, they said their main goal was to get a professional contract. So basically what I'm saying with this is that some players can sign specifically for PSG B team or PSG senior team, like Gricehead said. But, yes, players can play for both teams.
I still think that Brest should be listed ahead of Brest B, because he did not specifically sign for Brest B before signing for Brest. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't understand @Gricehead and GiantSnowman: If the player can sign with either the A team or the B team, then surely we should reflect in the infobox based on who they sign for. If a player signs with the A team, but ends up not playing with them, I would expect that to be reflected in the infobox with a line with 0(0) stats. --SuperJew (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Martin Ødegaard signed specifically with Real Madrid. We have Real Madrid B listed first because he played there first. RedPatchBoy (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
SuperJew, please stop trying to over complicate it, for all our sakes! There's a reason we currently do it as we do it - because it is straightforward and it works... GiantSnowman 15:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I am with SuperJew on this issue.
So, GS, you and RedPatchBoy say Brest B should be listed first?
Oh and by the way, I have another issue similar to this one: Draft:Moussa Sissako has signed a pro contract with PSG but never made the matchday squad with the team. Do I include PSG A team in his infobox? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, the usual way we currently display is as follows:
If a player plays for both A and B team, display the first team he played for first in the infobox;
If a player never plays for the A team, only the B team, do NOT add the A team to the infobox, only the B team; and
If a player is signed to the club but never appears for any team, then only add the A team to the infobox
Does that make sense? GiantSnowman 17:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The reason why I say that (in Italy, for example) a player signs a contract with "Juventus F.C. S.p.A", not with "Juventus U23", is for example because of posts like this. Juventus list players like Mario Mandžukić and Marko Pjaca, alongside players like Han Kwang-song and Alejandro Marqués. It states, for the latter, "permanent acquisition from Barcelona (SPA)", not from "Barcelona B", or "to Juventus U23", or whatever. Obviously idk if it's the same in France and/or Australia, so my comments are strictly related to Italy. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, that's a good point - the player contracts with the legal entity behind the club, not 'Juventus' or 'Barcelona B' or whatever. But we (obviously) don't display that in the infobox - meaning arguments above saying we should display 'who they contract with' fall away. Good stuff. GiantSnowman 18:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with GS here, we don't put the parent club if a player always plays with the B team. I do have a question about what happens when a player appears in the bench of B team first, then debuts with A - which goes first? I've come across this several times. But I don't want to complicate an already complicated situation.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Please go back to Gricehead's comment saying that a player can sign specifically for the B or A team in France. You can clearly see that this means Cibois signed with Brest's A team. Therefore the infobox should reflect this and Brest A should be listed first. I think that this is the best way to do it, at least for France, where this is the case. For other nations where it is not the case, the B team should be listed first, I agree. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And how do you know which of the teams he has signed with? Do you have access to his contract? 10:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know who you are since you did not sign your comment, but I know he signed for Brest A because they would have said so if he signed for Brest B specifically. You can see that he signed for Brest by clicking here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
GiantSnowman wrote the comment above. Your link to ouest-france.fr doesn't necessarily mean much. How do you know that, after signing that contract, he signed a second contract specifically to play for Brest B? How can he be a Brest player before being a Brest B player if his first appearance for the B team (7 March 2020) was before his first call-up to the senior team (23 October 2020)? Nehme1499 (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nehme1499: Did you not see the part that said a player can interchangeably play for both teams despite only having a contract for either Brest B or Brest A? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Which actually confirms that the French system is the same as the Italian one I was explaining above: the player signs a contract (not an A contract or a B contract, but a contract), and then plays for one of the teams. Cibois was first called-up (and debuted) for Brest B on 7 March 2020, he was first called-up to the A team on 23 October 2020 (>7 months later); ergo, B team above A team. Why did you preface this discussion with I have a dilemma. I do not know if in my draft Draft:Sébastien Cibois, I should put "Brest B" or "Brest" first, if you already believe to know the answer? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Liga MX playoffs

Not sure if we have reached a consensus on this, but where should we add stats of Liga MX playoffs (both apertura & clausura liguilla matches) in career stats of a player? Is it under league matches or other? Format of liguilla matches are like playoffs of many other leagues and not every team in the league can play it, so I guess we should add them under 'other' section? Let me know if there is already a consensus, cuz my edits on Federico Viñas are getting constantly changed due to this. Kokoeist (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kokoeist: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 130#Are Liguilla matches in Liga MX counted as normal regular season league matches? was the discussion from last February. You can tell my opinion on the matter from what I brought up in that discussion, but we might need more users to weigh in for this to be considered a consensus. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:National association football team results by year

Similarly to the discussion about Category:National association football team results by team (where I have been bold and have moved all the pages to the "Country national football team results (2010–2020)" format), what should we do with Category:National association football team results by year?

  1. 2021 [country] national football team
  2. 2021 [country] national football team season
  3. 2021 [country] national football team results
  4. [country] national football team results (2021)

Thoughts? Nehme1499 (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but merge into a similar format. So instead of having 2001 [country] national football team, 2002 [country] national football team, 2003 [country] national football team ect, it's 2000–09 or 2000–19. Any notable events that happened that year can be covered in the national team section in the relevant season article ie- 2019–20 in Scottish football. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, there are some articles in Category:National association football team results that aren't picked up in Category:National association football team results by team. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I've cleaned up Category:National association football team results and Category:Women's national association football team results. I might do Category:National association football team results by year in the near future. Nehme1499 (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's you we should be thanking, it's much better seeing them all the same rather than a patchwork of different styles Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_137&oldid=1137383237"