Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 142

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

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Referees

The article Baldomero Toledo has had the notability tag for six years. I did a super quick WP:BEFORE search and the first coverage of him that pops up is about newspapers complaining about how controversial his decisions were in match reports. What's our standard for referees, is it just GNG? Should the tag be removed or should this be sent to AfD? SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just GNG - no 'automatic' notability under NFOOTBALL or similar. I don't think coverage moaning about controversial decisions is going to be anything special for a referee... Giant Snowman 18:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

New signature

I'm sure some of you noticed one of the LTA's had been trolling again, especially on a couple of user talk pages which displayed my signature at the end of the text in some cases. Therefore I was changing my own signature to avoid any confusion among users which may have spotted this for the first time.

Out of interest, I'd also had a quick look at RMCD bot's contributions today and noticed it editing a couple of 'Harry' articles from different occupations (e.g. this one) indicating the troll may be searching for lesser known Harry's in order to warrant a massive trigger of tagging by the bot without someone reverting the edit on the article talk page first.

And thanks for protecting this page GiantSnowman. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully they'll get bored by the time page protection ends - ping me if they re-appear elsewhere. Giant Snowman 18:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yer, we can only hope. More people are probably well aware of this instead of just a small handful of people back in 2019. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Expatriate

Can a footballer be "Expatriate" in the country from which they are descended from? For example, is Mesut Ozil expatriate in Turkey? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Descent isn't a decider in whether or not we should put the expatriate categories. In my opinion, they should only be omitted if the person is also a citizen of that country (including players who moved to a country as an expatriate, and were then naturalized during their stay). If Özil is Turkish, then the categories should not be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

So, for example, Thiago Silva is not "expatriate" in France because he was naturalized? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If he has Category:Naturalized citizens of France, he can't be an expatriate. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. That's like saying he shouldn't be in PSG players category because he left the club. If a player was at any point of his career an expatriate in country X than the category should stay.--BlameRuiner (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories can be added or removed if things change. Obviously if a person is dead, the living category should be removed (even if at some point he was "living"). Thiago Silva will always be "a player who played for PSG", but you can't say that he will always be "a person who is an expatriate in France". What if Thiago Silva represented France internationally? It wouldn't make sense for a French international to be an "expatriate" in his own country. If anything, Thiago Silva should have Category:Brazilian emigrants to France, Category:Naturalized citizens of France, and Category:French people of Brazilian descent. All of this assuming that Thiago Silva's French nationality is actually "notable", otherwise we should default to the usual expatriate categories. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the French citizenship is notable. I put French people of Brazilian descent and French footballers, but perhaps we can also add those two other categories. I also believe the expatriate categories for France should be removed. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Having a country's nationality doesn't mean the player has to have "X footballers". For example, Zidane is an Algerian citizen, but he isn't notable for being an "Algerian footballer", or Amin Younes is also Lebanese, but the category "Lebanese footballers" shouldn't be included. Same goes for Thiago Silva, I think. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, we can remove the French footballers category then. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals

Should this page has dmy format or mdy format? Dr Salvus 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, shouldn't we be using UK English + dmy for association football articles (unless the topic at hand is related to another English-speaking country)? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't have thought so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK Italian articles tend to use DMY, so I have changed it to reflect that. Giant Snowman 20:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In general should use dmy format for all articles apart from those relating to the United States and/or Canada. --SuperJew (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about RETAIN: "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." That means anything other than strong national ties (for BritEng/dmy or otherwise) we should use whatever the article was originally written in. A list of finals in Spain does not fit this bill. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we shouldn't be using mdy on an Italian article just because whoever created it did it in mdy... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

British English is the standard on which English is based. Only American and Canadian made the change to the date format, so only those related articles should have mdy format. --SuperJew (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that's why we have RETAIN. Feel free to bring it up at the MOS talk page, but that is the global consensus, we can't change it locally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, per below. Thanks. Izno (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That is precisely what WP:DATEVAR says, if there is no article-specific talk page consensus otherwise. Izno (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As for the English variation selected for an article, the criteria are similar to how dates are selected: If the article is not strongly tied to an English-speaking country, which a list of Italian cup finals is not, then you can select the variation based on whether the current format is consistent, whether the first major contribution to the article had a specific format, and whether a talk page consensus exists which selected a different style than the first major contribution. Nowhere is it the case that we must tend to one variation or another otherwise. (If we come to an article-specific consensus that it is better to write an article in a recognized variant which is not 'whichever is most conveniently close geographically', then that's the new English version.) Izno (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RETAIN does not apply to date variation, only English variation. In general, you are looking for MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATEVAR. Italy is not an English-speaking nation so it cannot have a strong tie to such, so the format you choose is a function of whether the current format is consistent, whether the first major contribution to the article had a specific format, and whether a talk page consensus exists which selected a different style than the first major contribution. Izno (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I think I was implicitly talking about WP:DATEVAR, which comes under RETAIN, but the circumstances are the same. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Date format by country :/ Govvy (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Also listed in Italy article. Matthew hk (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: - to use your own quote, "you are simply wrong". Giant Snowman 17:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Grow up and actually read what I said. Thanks. Izno (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop telling other editors to grow up. Thanks. Giant Snowman 17:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Please answer clearly with "Yes" or "No". If you did, please indicate clearly why you believe "you are simply wrong" is a reasonable, much less correct, response to what I said. In case you need reminding, what I said was that how Italy formats its dates is irrelevant as a starting point to how this article's dates are formatted. Otherwise, move along. Izno (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Grow up..? GiantSnowman has been on this project forever, if he was a tree his roots would have grown through the whole project! Govvy (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Topscorer ?

I search the topscorer of 2019–20 Danish 1st Division and I don't find it. Could you help me ? Cordially. --FCNantes72 (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.dbu.dk/resultater/pulje/305672/topscorer cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Struway2. --FCNantes72 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jacky Bade

Hello. Jacky Bade was born in Guadeloupe. He played for the France amateur national team and the Guadeloupe national team, but both dates are unknown. What would I put for his nationality in the opening sentence? French, Guadeloupean, or would I leave it blank like I did now? Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead looks good. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

HKFC - do these merit separate articles

Currently there are two separate articles at Hong Kong FC and Hong Kong FC (football). The former discusses the club as a whole with its football and rugby teams, while the latter discusses solely the football team, but much of the information is duplicated between the two articles. Do they merit two separate articles, or should they just be merged (or main turned into disamb and article created for rugby)? Neither is very long, and many of the articles that link to HKFC probably should link to HKFC (f) if they are separate articles. RedPatch (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems the football team is the most likely candidate to occupy the Hong Kong FC spot, and the other sections of the club should be described in something like Hong Kong FC (sports club) (either including rugby, or with rugby at Hong Kong FC (rugby) depending on its notability). Similar to how e.g. A.E.K. (sports club) or IFK Göteborg (sports club) is organised. – Elisson • T • C • 19:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals 2

RSSSF says that the 1941 and the 1942 finals have been replayed but there are some sources that says that the 1941 and the 1942 finals were double-legged. What should I do? LDr Salvus 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What does more authoritative sources than RSSSF say? Not saying RSSSF or "the other sources" are not reliable, but a source like an official FIGC report, or reports in "Almanacco Illustrato del Calcio" (which seems to be used for early attendance figures) should probably have the correct answer. – Elisson • T • C • 19:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Arsène Wenger

Hello. Can someone help me find what division Arsène Wenger played in during the 1975–76 season? It's very unclear and I can't find any source to back up the current "Bas-Rhin" in the career statistics section. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

According to the French Wikipedia, Vauban played in the Ligue d'Alsace Promotion d'honneur in 1975–76. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

US Salinières Aigues Mortes

I put the current title for the article. It's pretty much correct but I have a dilemma for if I should add a - between Aigues and Mortes. The name of the city is Aigues-Mortes, but most sources I find refer to the club as Aigues Mortes, and the logo does not have the -. Should I move it to US Salinières Aigues-Mortes or not? What do you think? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't use a hyphen, then the page is correctly titled. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Overview table

Is this overview table really necessary? It seems a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me as it is information also given just below it, and these kinds of articles do often look like statsdumps, but I'd rather seek concensus on this here first. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, 2008–09 Leeds United F.C. season seems to have a fair collection of indiscriminate stats tables. I removed the worst offenders ("Most frequent start" and "Most frequent starting line-up") a week or so back, but there are plenty of other tables that should be culled IMO ("Captains", "Non-playing staff", "Former staff", "Other information" and perhaps a few others). Is there any general concensus on what's the limit for this kind of thing? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons offers a good indication to what should and shouldn't be in a season article, and how it should be formatted. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused why the players are listed by last name only --SuperJew (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the overview table. Often it's just repeating information already in the article. I am not a fan of the current Leeds season page. It's inconsistent with the previous season layout, and that squad list, the signed from, flag icons should be before the club name, not after. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I also thought this [1] odd behaviour on the current Leeds season page, regardless of being a sock, there was nothing wrong with the edits really, so curious why they needed to be reverted at all. Did the common-sense go out the window? Govvy (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Banned users should not be encouraged to make edits if they have no intention of addressing the reason why they were banned in the first place. That user has never shown any remorse for their actions and just creates sock after sock after sock. So no, common sense did not go out the window, and I will never apologise for indiscriminately reverting their additions until they express at least a modicum of contrition. – Pee Jay 15:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The overview tables are yet another case of a single editor trying to introduce their preferred format into season articles against MOS. Take this example for instance, which is using exactly the same section of the article as the source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed it. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@LTFC 95: Yeah, I think the number of templates in Category:Fb templates acts of evidence of that. All of them could quite easily be replaced by wikitables and a fair number of them are for completely unnecessary and indiscriminate information. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Bandiougou Fadiga

On Bandiougou Fadiga, the opening sentence is "who plays as a midfielder for Ligue 1 club Brest, on loan from Ligue 1 club Paris Saint-Germain. Both Ligue 1 are wikilinked. I have understood that we put the league for both clubs in the loan deal, but if the clubs are in the same league, should we remove the second "Ligue 1" in this case? For sure the wikilink can be removed for the second Ligue 1, but should we include it at all? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sentence should be reworded to "who plays as a midfielder for Brest, on loan from fellow Ligue 1 club Paris Saint-Germain." LTFC 95 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) It's just preference. The second instance of Ligue 1, if kept, should surely be unlinked though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely do not link twice in such a short space, and certainly consider removing one of the instances completely. LTFC's suggestion is sensible. Giant Snowman 15:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources for national football team appearances?

When new page patrolling, I noticed Boris Diecket by User:Lugnuts. One source claims the player had one national team appearance in 1988[2], another claims 3 appearances in 1986[3] (but writes his name "Dieket" instead of "Diecket"). NFT doesn't list Diecket or Dieket in the 1986 team[4]. This confusion or uncertainty is somewhat reflected in our article as well. There seems to be no reason to consider the second one, the RSSSF, a reliable source (it is basically a crowdsourced one, which tries to be correct but doesn't indicate where it gets its information from either), even though it is used on 35,000 pages. The other one has also been discussed in this talk page before, and there seemed to be misgivings about its reliablility as well. Are there any acceptable, authoritative sources for these facts, or do we just place the guesswork of a few sites on here? Fram (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I trust NFT more than RSSF. That's all I know. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

NFT is currently manually adding 1992 matches. Basically, they have partial data from 1993 to present, and anything before 1992 may be incorrect. RSSSF isn't user generated, if it's what you're hinting at. Personally, I would first use the federation's website (as both RSSSF and NFT aren't complete), then I would use NFT or RSSSF (NFT has a lot of data, it's consistent but not super reliable, RSSSF has a bit less data, but more reliable). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If we can only provide partial numbers for national football team appearances (or other appareances for that matter), shouldn't these simply be left unsaid (in the body) / unmentioned (in the infobox). Better no information than wrong information surely? Just mention that they played for the national team, without giving numbers or start- and endyears and so on? Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Fram - if the stats are incomplete then don't include them in the infobox. FWIW both RSSSF and NFT are good, reliable sources. Discrepancies between them does not take away from that. Giant Snowman 15:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I would just say that Diecket represented the Ivory Coast at the 1986 and 1988 African Nations Cup in prose. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's the difference between reliability and completeness. RSSSF was accepted as RS at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 30#RSSSF.com some several years ago now, NFT wouldn't be. IMO, if RSSSF list someone on a team sheet, then they belong on it, so I'd have no issue with including the 3 AFCON86 apps in the prose (and the 1 in 1988, if sourced to the corresponding RSSSF page). Completeness is another matter: I'm not convinced that complete sources even exist for exact numbers of appearances for some countries for 30+ years ago, even at the relevant federation website, and nothing should go in the infobox unless it's verifiably complete. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

When is a club a league champion?

I'm sure there is already established consensus about this, but when do we say that a club is a league winner? When they have mathematically secured first place, or when the season is actually over? This is Inter Milan's case, who yesterday secured 1st place even though the league is still ongoing. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

They can't be champions until the season is over, but there's nothing to stop us saying that they have clinched the championship -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok perfect, that's also my view. This is also linked to an ongoing discussion at Talk:Juventus F.C.. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sporting Club Lyon

I made an RM here. Please respond to it if you can. Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: please list at WP:FOOTYDEL in future. Giant Snowman 08:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable stats/records for women's football in England?

I just hit publish on Natasha Flint and I tried to get it into as good shape as possible, but there's a serious gap for her early career, especially during the time she spent in the sport's third tier, which isn't exactly a surprise, but finding info for the Women's Super League's early years is a little dodgy as well. Soccwerway, which is generally comprehensive, basically skips 4 years of her career and I've relied on digging up tweets for basic transfer news. Does anyone know a good, reliable source for lower-tier and older women's English football? Ytoyoda (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this thread with specifics. I'm working on creating an article for Beth Hepple, who has been with Durham W.F.C. since their first season in WSL2 2014, but Soccerway stats only go back to 2017. Similarly, Sam Tierney, who will likely be notable via WP:NFOOTY next season with Leicester City's promotion to the Women's Super League, played for Doncaster Rovers Belles from 2015 to 2018, but Soccerway stats only go back to 2016.

Anywhere else I can look for women's club football stats? TIA. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's as good as it gets, though I might be mistaken. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth contacting Soccerway and asking if they have leads. --SuperJew (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Thanks, that's a good idea. I imagine they have the capability to dig through match reports, if not the bandwidth or willingness. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Updated with most recent club infobox templete and added some of the missing data"

This is the edit summary used by @Dashiellx: to edit a number of football infoboxes - the only issue is I cannot see the benefit of such changes, nor can I see any recent changes to {{Infobox football club}} to justify the changes? Giant Snowman 13:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you have to have a personal grudge against me or why you are going back and reverting all my Good Faith Edits, nor why you have to have posted with such an attitude on my talk page or why we could not continue to discuss this on the Bradford City A.F.C. as you initiated. I simply do not understand why you are against standardization with the Football project's current approved template--dashiellx (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You have failed explained why you are making the changes, which add little to nothing to the infobox, and without discussion. Giant Snowman 13:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried to explain, you just didn't think my explanation was good enough. My update was to bring the article in line to the most recent agreed upon club infobox templete, which the pages I edited were not consistent with. You reverted good faith edits simply because you didn't think the change was necessary. Which conflicts with Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. You then went and reverted edits I made to other pages before a consensus was reached here or on the original Bradford City A.F.C. talk page where this should be taking place--dashiellx (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

"My update was to bring the article in line to the most recent agreed upon club infobox templete" - as stated above, I cannot see any recent changes to {{Infobox football club}} to justify the changes you have made. As also stated at the Bradford City talk page, the only actual change I could see was the inclusion of co-ordinates. You have not actually explained anything. Giant Snowman 13:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You are revering edits simply because in your opinion it did not improve the article. What is the point in having a standard template if it is not used across the project? --dashiellx (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The template documentation states the parameters are optional. For instance, why do we need the American parameter in the template when the club pages you are editing are English clubs? Unless they are relevant, they should not be included. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many of the parameters are optional, isn't that why the infobox is programmed to not show lines with empty data? Also having the full inforbox template on the page makes for easier editing for the next user who finds the data that is mssing. Many of the info boxes I updated has the parameters in a different order than the current one. This is not about the template however, this is about a user who reverted good faith edits simply because in their opinion it didn't improve the article. --dashiellx (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If you are merely ensuring that the order of the parameters matches the template, you should make this clear in the edit summary. If a parameter is never going to be relevant to the page you are editing, there is no point in adding it, irrespective of whether it is programmed to not display empty data. LTFC 95 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

How is stating that the page is being updated with the current approved standard infobox for the project not inclusive of ensuring that the order of the parameters matches the template? But again, that is still missing the issue here. The issue is not the template, but the user reverting edits they don't like. --dashiellx (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You should read MOS:VAR. How to format the infobox parameters is basically a type of styling. Please stop what you're doing. Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable. Parameters in infoboxes and their order or inclusion or non-inclusion is an optional style. – Elisson • T • C • 14:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, not sure who that is directed towards. I do not understand how updating an article to the most recent approved version of the infobox for the project is Disruptive editing? I am not trying to be disruptive, I just wanted to update the club info box to the most recent version for the project ,which was approved by the consensus of the project. It seems to be the reverting user did so simply because they didn't like it and not in line with any policy? --dashiellx (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As already explained by other editors, if a paramater is empty and likely never filled, it makes no sense to have it included. Kante4 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The parameter exists because the project chose for it to be there. MOS:VAR implies individual editors should not be reverting good faith edits simply because they don't like the new infobox or do not think the current agreed upon format is an improvement to the one that is already on the article. --dashiellx (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Dashiellx - you keep mentioning 'the most recent approved version of the infobox' without actually having any knowledge about the template or the WikiProject. Respectfully, stick to editing where know what to do. Your edits to these infoboxes are not productive. Giant Snowman 15:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

First, thank you for moving this out here, indents getting a bit much.

Are you saying that theTemplate:Infobox football club which includes an example on the page showing most parameters included (even the blank ones), is not the 'the most recent approved version of the infobox' by project consensus? --dashiellx (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Read the responses above. You do not need to use every single parameter in every single football club article, particularly not if they are not applicable or will remain blank. Look at this another way - if WikiProject members wanted to update the infoboxes in individual clubs, they would already have been done... Giant Snowman 15:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the responses and it seems to be a difference of opinion on style, not policy. Nor was I aware you had to be a member of any specific project to make edits or have an interest. Additionally, your last two responses are basically telling me to just go away. --dashiellx (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you not understand that what you are doing is going against MOS:VAR, rather than those who revert you? What MOS:VAR is saying is clearly that you should not change the parameters of an infobox just because you believe they should follow a specific order (based on an optional style)? – Elisson • T • C • 20:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To me it makes sense to standardise the order of the parameters as it makes infoboxes easier to read if they all have the same order. Adding parameters that do not apply, however, clutters up infoboxes and makes them harder to read. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Rather then enjoying helping out with something that seemed like simple housekeeping and you're inability to help someone understand and come to a consensus on way in which the club information boxes could be improved, you have bullied me into not wanting to help with this project. In my time on Wikipedia, I have never encountered such toxic people who were not vandals. --dashiellx (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Calling everyone else toxic as soon as they do not agree with you does not help your cause. There is a point in standardisation, yes. But we have tens of thousands of football club articles on Wikipedia using the template, and going around single-handedly changing any of them to a standard that isn't an agreed standard (what you say is a standard is nothing more than an example of how to use the infobox template) is just not a good idea. That's what people have been trying to tell you, and you have been snubbing them off and invoking AGF. Citing another part of MOS:VAR should make it clear to you that what you were doing is not prudent editing: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." As said, multiple ways of formatting parameters in the infobox are acceptable differences in style, just like wikitagging headings either without (===Title===) or with spaces (=== Title ===). Going around changing either to the other without a really important reason, and especially without discussion, is bad editing. I, like probably everyone else, of course have a preferred style – and if I do substantial work to an article I may in some cases also update the style used. But just going around changing the style for no other reason than changing the style wastes time for so many people. For people reviewing the "changes", for people trying to explain why you shouldn't do those changes, and of course for yourself. And for what good reason? None, really. I don't really see how this type of standardisation would save any time for anyone else. It's not like people go around editing infoboxes all day and being confused by different orders of the parameter – and if they do for a good reason, they should use some semi-automated editing tool to help them with that anyway. – Elisson • T • C • 20:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is getting to WP:STICK territory. There is no reason to add blank parameters to a template. If you create an infobox and it has blank parameters, I wouldn't expect them to be removed, but this seems like a pointless edit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is in WP:STICK territory. My concerns at this point have nothing to do with the information box (which I still do think should be standardized across the project). My point was my efforts/edits were never accepted as a good faith effort to help nor was there any effort to explain anything respectfully or to come to an consensus. Once I understood there was a real disagreement over the infobox, I attempted to comply with the admin's instructions. I made an edit and added a section to the talk page to discuss my changes in an effort to come to a consensus on how I could help improve my editing within the Football project. The admin reverted my edit again and then opened this discussion on the main project page just to bully me into compliance, not in an effort to work together. Along with several passive aggressive comments on my personal talk page, the admin basically told me to get lost. This is the toxic behavior I was referring to and should never be acceptable behavior from an administrator. --dashiellx (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No - what actually happened is you tried making changes which, as the above discussion shows, are not deemed constructive; when I informed you of that you simply restored your own edits; and ever since other editors have spoken out against your changes you have started making baseless accusations about "toxic" behaviour. You failed to explain or justify your changes, so accept it and move on, simple as, nothing more. Giant Snowman 11:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Believe what you wish. I see where I made mistakes and I have tried to explain how I tried to make things better. I will try one more time. Yes, I restored my edits. Then you reverted them again with additional (passive aggressive) instructions on my talk page. I reverted my edits again and added a post to the talk page as I was trying to follow your instructions, but you chose not to see that nor did you make any attempt to be instructive or even polite. I understand my edit summaries were not up to par with what you (and the project) wanted, but when I tried to improve rather then even see that effort, you just decided to attack (WP:BRICKS). Yes, I understand now leaving the the blanks in not kosher and the reason why thanks to @LTFC 95:, @Lee Vilenski: and @Robby.is.on: who all discussed it long before you mentioned anything other then your opinion that my edits were not necessary. As an admin you should be following WP:ENCOURAGE and WP:FRIENDLYSPACE which your comments of "Respectfully, stick to editing where know what to do.", "Sigh...." and "if WikiProject members wanted to update the infoboxes in individual clubs, they would already have been done" are not. --dashiellx (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Pessi (social media)

Hello. I made a draft here. It is about a social media phenomenon surrounding fans called "Pessis" who trolled Lionel Messi but did more than this. Anyways it clearly meets GNG and I have a lot of sources on the draft, but I didn't really do much. I would appreciate if someone wants to work with me in clearly defining this phenomenon in an encyclopedic way. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Does it clearly meet GNG for a standalone article? It seems to clearly be a nickname for Messi, so should be part of Messi's article if it's significant, and the sources are sufficiently reliable.

If anyone honestly searches Pessi on Wikipedia expecting to read about people trolling Messi for missing a penalty, it should probably be in context of the player in question. Koncorde (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree this does not need a separate article. Giant Snowman 09:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Totally does not deserve an own article. And GNG is clearly met? I dont think so. Kante4 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not about Messi, it's about a group of social media people who perform raids who also have the name Pessi. But ok. Paul Vaurie (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I get the impression that none of you actually looked at any of the sources and understood the subject of the article. It's not about the word "Pessi". I personally think it meets GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we get it, we just don't think trolls using the name Pessi are notable. Ratio'ing Joe Biden isn't particularly relevant or impactful. Trending on twitter isn't particularly significant. Stuff trends on Twitter all the time. Koncorde (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources like BFM TV and France Inter talking about it... :-/ I think this is somewhat relevant. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lots of stuff is reported on TV. They have a lot of hours to fill. It doesn't mean it has any particular notability any more than any other ripple through social media. By all means crack on, but 3 people have all said "meh". Koncorde (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's not about the footballer then why are you asking for help on the football project? Spike 'em (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok good points, good bye. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Delhi Dynamos Football Club

Could someone take a look at this? We have a clear consensus from 2019 about this article being moved but Imsamrat392 (talk · contribs) pushed through with Delhi Dynamos Football Club even though there was no requested move or discussion on whether this is a separate club or not. I would also like to point out that he did this after attempting the same with Delhi Dynamos FC where it did not work so he moved on to "Football Club".

Also, side note, could an admin change RoundGlass Punjab F.C. and remove the "." from FC? Indian clubs don't those. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you start an AFD about the 'Delhi Dynamos Football Club' article. I'll move the Roundglass article. Giant Snowman 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the second article back to Punjab FC and warned @Imsamrat392: that if they try anything like that again they will be blocked. Giant Snowman 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like @John B123: has restored the Delhi Dynamos redirect. Giant Snowman 21:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Delhi Dynamos FC was protected to prevent the same user creating a full article by copy and pasting (without attribution) most of the content from Odisha_FC. This latest escapade seems to be an attempt to circumvent protection and create the page. --John B123 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi both! Thanks so much! I personally agree that they are separate but obviously a discussion is needed first. I'll keep an eye out for any other variations. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021–22 A.S. Roma season

I am pretty sure Dr Salvus can not close an AfD for an article which he created. Surely even know it's a keep, it's a clear WP:COI. Govvy (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

They also participated in the discussion; which unless it's a withdrawal or housekeeping it's not suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No they shouldn't, as they are involved. That being said, there did seem to be a consensus to keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: I agree with you - clearly this is an involved user and should not do the closure, especially as a non-admin. You can list at WP:DRV to request vacating close. --SuperJew (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think a DRV is necessary, maybe an independent person should rv and close? Govvy (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No real need for DRV, other than bureaucracy. I've left a message on the users talk - although this is hardly a first offense here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have re-opened the AFD and will warn @Dr Salvus:. Giant Snowman 09:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't look at the Dr Salvus talk page, I just had the AfD on my watchlist. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can an involved editor speedy keep a withdrawn nomination? I've had mixed messages on my talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like some bad advice. You can totally close a withdrawn AfD provided no one has suggested anything other than keep. This usually means the nominator, but completing the withdrawal for the benefit of another user would just be uncontroversial housekeeping. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"Don't do it. Two or three of them and you'll be out the door." is crazy language for a non-admin too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Lee - it's absolutely fine to close a withdrawn AFD as long as there are no delete !votes. Say it has been 'withdrawn' rather than 'speedy keep' though. Giant Snowman 15:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok got it, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. v. Liverpool F.C. (2021)

Does this need to exist? It seems too much like WP:NOTNEWS and a summary already exists at Glazer_ownership_of_Manchester_United#European_Super_League. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Should be under ESL main article and responses to it. Could be summarised with "the Liverpool vs Man Utd game was called off due to protests against the American owners of Utd". Everything else is just completely unnecessary navel gazing. This Newsifying of football is really taking off, have people not got more to do in lockdown? Koncorde (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, should not have an own article per reasons above. Kante4 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, what on earth is happening with this template. All Star matches against Australian A League Teams? Now a cancelled fixture. Dear me. And the Buffet game... what on earth is going on with the universe. Koncorde (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to the A-League All-Star Game. It was a notable match back when they used to play it. – Pee Jay 17:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Late to the party on this. Agree no separate article needed, but in addition to the ESL, Glazer ownership and club season articles, it could also go into the MUFC v LFC rivalry article. The protests weren't directed AT Liverpool as such but it's no coincidence that it came to a head due to the high profile of the fixture - and of course Liverpool were also in the Super League bunch. 16:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would reject the Rivalry page addition. It was a coincidence that the next match involved Liverpool, and was fans protesting against their own clubs. If we wanted to include it on the Rivalry page then we should find sources that deal with it from that POV i.e. unified fans against clubs. Koncorde (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Kits and international results

Hiya! Looking over Philadelphia Union, the article has a section for both kit and international results. Both are unreferenced and the international results are like 95% friendlies. I also wouldn't think we need a section for stadium records but what do you all think? Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Kits - referenced prose about the colours, logo etc. is fine. Just a gallery of kits is not, per WP:NOTGALLERY and also AFD consensus which I can dig out if needed.

International results - not needed, remove, notwithstanding the fact it is unreferenced.

Stadium records - not needed, remove, notwithstanding the fact it is unreferenced. Giant Snowman 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

International records could be cut to just mentioning the 2021 CONCACAF Champions League as a section about Continental appearances. We do similar for European teams in the Champion's League/Europa League/UEFA Cup. Rest of things mentioned are worthless. Joseph2302 (talk)

Can kit galleries be kept, accompanied by sourced prose? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

No, what is the purpose, other than for significant changes in kit? Giant Snowman 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, my referencing for that section is Burnley which was recently FA'd. The section on kit and colours is really nice. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that looks great. Giant Snowman 21:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandal

Our "extremely tenacious" vandal has also been found in Wikipedia Commons as well I noticed, see this edit as an example. Please could we have more eyes on my talk page there as it takes over an hour for me or someone else to revert this nonsense. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this guy really has a problem with you. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. The vandal created two images which as it stands are still available on Commons as image 1 and image 2 which were used on Matt Lawton and Harry Toffolo respectively. They will be deleted eventually. The latter image was also used in the link of the opening sentence of this section but I haven't noticed any more edits which used these two images for trolling purposes. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

2007-08 Tahiti Ligue 2

Is it really notable enough? I was considering sending to AfD. Govvy (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say definitely no. The same user has also created season articles for 2018/19, 2019/20, and 2020/21- they could probably all be bundled into 1 AfD rather than 4 separate AfDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

o, I don't know how to bundle AfD's. Maybe someone else can do it. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Teams in the Tahiti Ligue 2 play in the Tahiti Cup, so I think they are notable enough. The formatting of the articles should obviously be improved though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How interesting, Tahiti Cup winners get a chance at Coupe de France. Hmm, guess the way the articles were done, felt amateur league, I do question GNG know, but I don't know Tahiti football. Govvy (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: The format seems copy-pasted from RSSSF. --SuperJew (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The league might be notable, and the clubs might be; but that does not mean we need individual season articles. I suggest take one to AFD and then see what consensus is before considering getting rid of the others. Giant Snowman 14:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely say that the season is not notable but the league is. Honestly, you can have a table in the league season with champions with a reference to RSSSF and if someone wants to know individual results, they click that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd actually avoid an AfD entirely and maybe create a "year in Tahitian football" and include the tables there as a deletion alternative. These probably don't need their own articles, but it doesn't mean we need to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 17:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The week-by-week results are not needed for sure, or would be better served in a table such as this rather than in the list form with no additional information as to scorers, location, date, etc. Rather than creating a XXXX year in Tahiti football, maybe just create a List of Tahiti Division2 seasons and list all of the tables there. Then instead of a new article every year, it would just be one article with a table for each season. (If it's deemed notable enough) RedPatch (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the week by week are completely unnecessary. SportingFlyer T·C 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Advice: best forum/resource for football history?

I was looking to expand out some of the briefer articles on historically notable clubs, such as Clapham Rovers F.C.. Can other editors recommend a forum or other community hangout for those knowledgeable and interested in football history? Grunners (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Merthyr Town F.C.

This appears to be one article about two separate clubs with the same name - shouldn't the article be split? Giant Snowman 22:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I have started a draft at Draft:Merthyr Town A.F.C., should I just copyedit the 'Early years' section of the current article? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The original 'Merthyr Town' article was about the defunct 1930s club, not the modern club (which was only founded 5 years later). So, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think we need to move the existing article to Merthyr Town A.F.C. (if that is the correct name) to retain that history for the article about the old club, even if it has bee hijacked by the new club, and then start a new article about the new club? Giant Snowman 11:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that would work. I'm sorry for the mistake. I am rather busy in life at the moment and don't have as much time for Wikipedia so creating a new article may take a bit of time. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-League seasons

Seriously, how are non-league seasons below level 8 notable. Some editors are creating a load of season pages which fail GNG straight out. Number 57 You should know better, GNG is fundamental to wikipedia. Why on earth are you interested in keeping all these non-notable articles. 1978–79 London Spartan League clearly fails GNG, yet... you want to keep it. Govvy (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, are you here to have a pop about that specific AFD, or do you wish to discuss the wider issue? Giant Snowman 15:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Umm, both! :/ Govvy (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The question in my mind is whether the older version of these leagues received enough coverage, since even step 9 gets independent secondary coverage. I can't solve that question myself, but it's worth having a centralised discussion to make future AfDs easier. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does seem like people voted keep just because other similar articles exist. Which doesn't seem like a great reason- especially when we've deleted National League season articles. I would vote to delete all, as no evidence they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

We've never deleted a National League season article – we've deleted club season articles at that level, which are a completely different thing. And on the original topic, as SportingFlyer points out, current leagues at this level (9/10) do pass GNG; I would be very surprised if there was less coverage 30-40-50 years ago (when regional/local press was in much better shape). Number 5 7 15:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

National is far higher in the league pyramid, the bar at the moment, well. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Woops, my mistake. Would still favour deleting them all, don't see them meeting WP:GNG. Most of them provide nothing more than a table- if people want to see historic league tables, they can use RSSSF website, don't need to repeat the information on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion, but this does border on canvassing (as much as you haven't linked to the AfD in question). Probably best to either leave a non-sided message about the AfD, or not discuss individual articles here at all until the AfDs are closed.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Hardly, N57 made me post here, when he said a centralised discussion is needed. And the AfD doesn't seem like an appreciate place. So you don't have an opinion on a topic that fails GNG? I really don't know why such an important policy is somehow void to so many users. Govvy (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have been more helpful if you'd started this discussion as a formal question along the lines of "Currently we have a set of articles on league seasons for English leagues at levels 8/9. Do we consider these notable enough for articles or should they be deleted?" Number 5 7 17:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not really sure how you would expect me to know that there was a request for a centralised discussion, as this was much more of a rant about a reply on a different page. It would help if this was written a little more from a neutral point of view. I don't have an opinion on if this particular article meets GNG, as I haven't yet done a WP:BEFORE. The articles should indeed have the burden of proof that they meet GNG, (or otherwise prove that the subject is notable).

Number 57, surely notability doesn't work the way we are suggesting here? If we haven't covered this specifically in an SNG, we have to go by GNG at AfD. I'm not sure how suggesting similar articles may/may not be notable effects this particular page.

There may be some legs in finding if we want to grant a consensus on adding such season articles to NFOOTY, but until such time we need to prove GNG. I may be missing something, but that's my impression from the messages here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Jon Stead

A lot of commentators today said today's game was Stead's 700th - his career stats say 699. Who is correct? Giant Snowman 21:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Which Jon Stead? You haven't even linked to an article. Govvy (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The one called Jon Stead? Giant Snowman 21:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Soccerway and soccer base are not near that number. Maybe the guy can't count. Govvy (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Soccerbase shows 527 apps, while Soccerway has 602 apps. I don't know where we got 699 from. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Soccerbase 527 starts and 172 sub appearances = 699, Soccerway 609 total but appears to have his first spell at Huddersfield missing completely, and all of his cup appearances for Blackburn, Sunderland and Sheff Utd missing too. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

they prob just rounded up for 700, since it sounds better than saying 699?Muur (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: ah my bad, I completely missed the apps between brackets. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Well something is wrong in the Stats column in the Other column for Huddersfield. It shows 1 other appearance in his first season and 0 appearances in his second season, but it shows a total of 2. Then the 2 is included for the total of 14 at the bottom. So either an other appearance is missing, or there's a miscalculation. RedPatch (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Soccerbase that "1" should be a "2", although it doesn't say what the other appearance was (I am guessing also the EFL trophy). Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

From this link it is EFL trophy but in the second year, so should be 1 + 1 = 2 RedPatch (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

wait, I found it. you guys arent counting his four appearances in the 2019–20 FA Trophy, you only list play-offs under his "other" section for 19/20. soccerway show he played four matches in the 19/20 Fa Trophy, bumping him up to 703 appearances. Soccerbase dont track the fa trophy, but soccerway do. this is something that will be relevant for the entire harrogate squad because the FA Trophy was delayed like many other cup competitions, so harrogate played 3 matches in it whilst a league two club, those appeareances techinically counting as part of the 19/20 season even tho they played them in the 20/21 season.Muur (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

ENFA agrees with the stats table up to and including Notts County; they haven't yet updated to the end of this season. There was an addng-up error in the league cup column total, which makes the grand total 704 (not 703). Which looks to me like the "700 professional appearances" isn't counting the FA Trophy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we're up to scratch with the table now that we've spotted the adding error there. I presume the FA Trophy is not as noteworthy as e.g. the FA Cup so the commentators would not have taken those appearances in their notes when they mentioned about game 700. Hope we're all happy about this now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff everyone, thank you! Giant Snowman 15:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion relating to the Northern Ireland flag taking place

See Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2021. FDW777 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Philippines national football team

Hi all,

I added a Player records section to the Philippines national football team but have had it removed a couple of times, then started a discussion on the Talk page but the user in question appears to be an infrequent editor therefore was hoping to gain a community consensus over what should be done.

Essentially, the data for the Philippines records is incomplete as NFT does not list matches consistently prior to 1992. I added a note on the section so that if users knew of a more complete source they'd be able to amend the table to reflect their statistics however this was also deemed unacceptable. I've linked the section here: Special:PermanentLink/1020546196#Player records. What are people's opinions on the matter?

Cheers, Felixsv7 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Block

Could admins please consider a block for 103.234.7.152; their contributions [5] are solely in the form disruptive, subtle false information, adding bogus players to low-profile squad lists and sometimes adding false info to bios of players with similar names to their fictional ones to make them appear to be related. Unfortunately this is not the first address used for this nonsense and probably won't be the last. Crowsus (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A few edits were good, such as this and this, but the rest appeared nonsense and have been reverted. I have issued them with a final warning - let me know if they vandalise again. Giant Snowman 12:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks, my feeling is the good edits are a cover in the hope the bogus ones will be overlooked, but benefit of the doubt I suppose. No idea what is going on there - adding their favourite Football Manager newgens possibly? Those generate from the player names already in the database of course. Crowsus (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: they've done it again, adding several bogus players and editing a BLP with details of a fictitious relative at another team. Crowsus (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

They've been doing it for years: e.g. this from 2018 in the same IP range, but I'm convinced I remember them from longer ago that that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both - I have blocked. Giant Snowman 14:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Moudi Najjar

Najjar seems to be playing for two clubs at the same time: Macarthur FC, on loan from Melbourne City, and Northbridge FC. He also seems to seamlessly switch between the two sides. Can someone who knows a bit about Australian association football clear up the situation (as the current infobox suggests that he is on loan at both sides). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 04:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup - Najjar joined Macarthur FC on a season-long loan from Melbourne City prior to the 2020–21 A-League season [6]. In December 2020 Macarthur FC and Northbridge FC made a partnership, with teams playing under the name "Northbridge FC Bulls" [Macarthur's nickname and logo is bulls], making Northbridge function as a reserves team in the NPL tier for Macarthur [7], as most A-League clubs have a reserves/youth team at NPL tier (and last year Northbridge played under the name "North Shore Mariners" due to a partnership with Central Coast Mariners [8]) --SuperJew (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

should prob mention this in the Macarthur section so as to avoid confusion.Muur (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've slightly cleaned up the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexandria Zone League

I've been reviewing a lot of articles tagged with notability concerns recently. I don't really want to nominate this for deletion but I have absolutely no way of verifying this information - can anyone here help? SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It is mentioned on RSSSF's list of Egyptian champions. Number 5 7 21:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like it's enough to pass WP:GNG and there may be some synth there by creating a table when the RSSSF doesn't even seem 100% sure - is there a merge target for this anywhere? SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if there wasn't enough to pass GNG in the Egyptian media. This was effectively a top division league for much of its existence. Number 5 7 17:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Loftus Road

I note that Loftus Road has been moved to Kiyan Prince Foundation Stadium, a move which has previously been reverted. Should the article be moved back until a discussion has taken place? LTFC 95 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll need an RM. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Loftus Road the common name? Govvy (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree it needs a WP:RM, so have reverted the move. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Plus I always thought it was unwritten policy that we do not use sponsored names unless the stadium has had no normal/non-sponsored name since construction anyway? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a thing. It's more a common name thing. The thing is that fans are unlikely to call by sponsor names unless that's the only name for the stadium, so it would seep in that way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: you are correct - traditionally we do not use sponsored names where a non-sponsored alternative exists. Giant Snowman 21:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Loftus Road should be used. The other name is just a sponsor and we don't do those. Man city's stadium's article is called the City of Manchester Stadium though I've never heard it referred to by that name. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: Literally the first reference in the lede refers to it by that name. --SuperJew (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew oh yeah... :| REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And then there is the Emirates Stadium. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no non-sponsored alternative name to the Emirates Stadium AFAIK. Giant Snowman 15:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The Emirates is also known as the "Arsenal Satdium" and was "Ashburton Grove" before the sponsorship. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Then why is the article there? COMMONNAME does not apply, hence why we have an article about Boleyn Ground and not 'Upton Park' which was far more widely used. Giant Snowman 10:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I'm afraid, as an Arsenal fan, I have to correct you on the Emirates. It never did have an official name until halfway through construction when the sponsorship came in. "Arsenal Stadium" is the name used for it in UEFA competition due to UEFA rules and "Ashburton Grove" was an unofficial name and yes fans do use it but it was never official. The only name it has had since opening is "Emirates Stadium". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We could move it to Lotus Road (Kiyan Prince Foundation Stadium) or Kiyan Prince Foundation Stadium (Lotus Road). That could satisfy both sides by having both in the title RedPatch (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not really a recommended way to title articles. That's why we don't have our main article at football (soccer) any more. – Elisson • T • C • 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that a hybrid name is not a good idea. Giant Snowman 15:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with above, not a good idea. It's not COMMONNAME nor is it in keeping with the MOS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Football referee

Per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, we should generally avoid placing links next to each other, which is why we don't write [[Association football|football]] [[Football player|player]], rather [[Association football|football player]]. Should the same be done for referees, so football referee? Or is the link to referee redundant? Obviously, the word "player" doesn't really need a link, as a player of football is intuitive enough. I'm not sure we can say that the average reader will know what a "referee" is. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: I'd say style it as football referee --SuperJew (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also do that, as one link is better than 2. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with one 'mega' link. Giant Snowman 18:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Club Ranking in the World (via FiveThirtyEight)

Hi, so I saw this table at San Antonio FC. I have noticed this before, mainly with Asian clubs, but I know it also appears in European and Americas clubs as well. Are these really necessary or even allowed? I don't really think they are and honestly, what authority does FiveThiryEight have for ranking every football club in the world, especially when an American 2nd Division club is apparently a little worse than the 2nd best Japanese club. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

They also rate Brighton as the 6th best team in England (ahead of the team currently 3rd in the table) and the 20th best in the world, so seems somewhat bogus to me. The rankings table should be ditched IMO, unless the 538 rankings can shown to be widely reported and used in major RS as an indicator of ability. Spike 'em (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

While FiveThirtyEight is otherwise a reliable source, these rankings use Transfermarkt as part of the calculations, so I'd be comfortable saying that they should be removed. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Definitely questionable and should not be included. Giant Snowman 16:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely would then say remove. There is no real reliable way to calculate this and the algorithm uses sourcing that is not reliable on wikipedia. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For me it's not a question of reliability. There are numerous computer rankings out there, each with their own algorithm. And we're not using the FiveThirtyEight rankings to claim, for instance, that "Brighton are the sixth best team in England and 20th best in the World" - rather, we are saying that that is where they are in the FiveThirtyEight SPI. To that extent, the sourcing is reliable regarding where they rank in SPI. However, there is no particular reason to use SPI over any of the numerous other computer rankings out there and to include that information in every club article. It would be reliable for a discussion on computer rankings in soccer, or in sports in general, but to include that information in every club article is WP:UNDUE weight on it. Smartyllama (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Football ownership groups

Hey, just wondering if people thought it would be worthwhile to have a "list of football ownership groups" article. City Football Group is the only individual page I'm aware of, but I thought it might be useful to collate a list of clubs owned by the same entity/person/family plus possibly have some prose around the phenomena. You'd include CFG, the Pozzos and Watford/Udinese, the Red Bull groups etc. I think the difficulties would be verification and the parameters of inclusion. There'll be people with small shareholdings in a number of clubs, would you want to set a share percentage as a threshold for inclusion? Or just restrict to majority shareholdings? Anyway, let me know what you think... (I might not even have time to create this!) HornetMike (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible. Giant Snowman 14:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Olivier Martinez (footballer)

Olivier Martinez played for the B team of PSG after having been on loan to SC Abbeville. How do I order the infobox? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is fine. Giant Snowman 16:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Football player

Hello. What do you guys think is a better idea to write in articles? "Johnny Hallyday (born 33 Thranuary 3333) is a Templatonian former professional footballer and manager" or "Johnny Hallyday (born 33 Thranuary 3333) is a Templatonian former professional football player and manager"? I usually write the first one but I am starting to think it may be wrong. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would go with "Johnny Hallyday (born 33 Thranuary 3333) is a Templatonian football manager and former professional player". – Pee Jay 06:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If the person is a current manager, PeeJays's wording is correct. If they are retired both as a player and a manager, then "former professional football player and manager" is correct. "Footballer and manager" is a bit unclear, as they could be any kind of non sports-related "manager". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is, should we use the term 'football player' or 'footballer'? (That's the difference in Paul's sentence); football player (like soccer) is not typically used much these days in the UK but may be elswhere. Personally I prefer footballer. Not much need to change it though, like other language variations, unless there has been or can be a discussion and it can be included in footy-project conventions. Eagleash (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer footballer too and I think it's most appropriate for players from the British Isles. That being said, I don't object to there being regional variations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

For a player only - 'footballer'. For somebody who has coached - 'football player and coach/manager'. Giant Snowman 09:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the question here is why are there 33 days in a month and when on earth did we get a month called Thranuary and how did we get to the future in the year 3333? I'd rather we stick to the Gregorian calendar! Govvy (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Since "football" refers to multiple codes in most English-speaking countries, wouldn't it be easier to say "association football player and manager", and then use "football" or "footballer" as appropriate thereafter? Ytoyoda (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Only in limited circumstances, where a player has played both association football and American football for example. Giant Snowman 14:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, "footballer" is unambiguous in most countries (common exceptions: US, Aus, Ireland), we shouldn't adjust our terminology to suit Americans. Saying someone is e.g. a "Finnish footballer" is unambiguous, as Finland isn't known for any other "football" sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the two above, especially since the football code will probably be linked, which removes the ambiguity. – Pee Jay 15:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

So, any consensus? Personally the one that makes most sense to me is "former professional football player and manager". Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

For former players and former managers, yes. For current managers and former players, "professional football manager and former player". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. How would we wiki link that? Personally for the first one I would do "former professional football player and manager. The second one I'm not sure yet, let's see what people think of this one first. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Linking player is heading into "sky is blue" territory. Either way, people would be more likely to click on football expecting to find out about the sport, particularly when it's ambiguous. Hack (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

~~Only football needs to be linked, player and manager don't.~~ "Football player" should link to Association football. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Linking [[Association football|football]] [[Football player|player]] should never be used as it is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Either link only to football player or use "football player" as suggested above. Spike 'em (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we link manager? Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In articles I write I will say "former professional football player and manager" and "professional football manager and former player". Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Specific season article notability

In October 2020 it appears Spiderone tagged a number of season articles with notability concerns, specifically seasons of FK Vardar and any Armenian season. The three Armenian season pages I looked at appear to pass WP:GNG even though it's not a fully professional league, and a FK Vardar season article was recently no consensus'd at AfD. I've been trying to remove notability tags from sports pages as my current "project", either from AfDing/PRODding the article or by finding new sources - I'd like to remove these tags in bulk instead of doing a bulk AfD nom, but wanted to get consensus on what to do with these before I take any action. As an example, see 2015–16 FK Vardar season (which fails GNG on its face, but it's the most followed team in North Macedonia) and 2016–17 FC Pyunik season (which is poorly sourced but in my mind demonstrates this season would have been covered by reliable sources in Armenia.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Chimienti

I did not know beach soccer was a thing until today, and as such I have less than no idea of notability levels for the highest professional level. If anyone is familiar, can you weigh in on whether the notability tag should be removed? Can confirm he was on the FiFA roster, but can't find in depth coverage so would need to be sport guidelines v. GNG. Thanks! StarM 01:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG would apply as WP:NFOOTBALL is intended for association football, and not football-variants like beach soccer or futsal. It might be worth a note being added to the notability requirement spelling this out. Hack (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Hack. On that, will PROD as there's no coverage of his playing career. StarM 13:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

He did play outdoor soccer in the National Premier Soccer League, which is not fully professional, and had a relatively uneventful college soccer career, so doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Hack (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup controversies

Just to alert you to the fact that the article formerly titled "2022 FIFA World Cup controversies" has been moved to 2022 FIFA World Cup Developments. (diff) The move was done by @Varban Ivankov:, whose rationale for doing so (boldly, as far as I can see) was that the previous title was "defamatory and misleading" - given the content of the article, and the fact that a similar naming scheme has been employed for multiple other international sporting events, such as the Tokyo and London Summer Olympic Games, I would dispute this claim.

They then proceeded to delete large passages of the article, removing, from what I can see, relevant and suitably sourced material, with subsequent edits (diffs for this), again citing concerns about bias. I again feel that these edits detrimentally impact the article and its veracity, and am of the belief that they, along with the move, should be reverted. I thought it best to gauge the feeling of the relevant WikiProject before doing so. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this, as I agree. WP:BRD in effect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else, there was no reason for "developments" to have a capital D, as it's not a proper noun -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Pierre Bosser (footballer)

What do you think of the notes I left in the career statistics table on Jean-Pierre Bosser (footballer)? Is a note saying "Statistics for (blah blah) may be inaccurate" appropriate? Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep what I have. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Toffolo

Would this be a good time to temporary protect this talk page for "persistent block evasion" - the page history shows nothing but half of edits of nonsense move requests, half of them being reverted by us and the early edit which created the page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The edit filter I requested to deal with this block evasion has gone live now (after today's occurrences), so hopefully page protection shouldn't be required. Gricehead (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The individual was active today under two new usernames, both now blocked: CeriAnne Berry64 and MichaelJMatthews34. The latter tried to edit the Harry Toffolo page but was blocked by the filter so apparently picked some other random pages to mess with....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad we now have the filter. I'd also requested deletion of a Karen Field photo where I'd noticed it was posted on a few user talk pages and Karen Bardsley over three separate Wiki projects (here). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Unable to join club - termination of contract

What should be done in a situation such as Matías Roskopf. He signed with Cavalry FC in the Canadian Premier League in January for the 2021 season, but due to Covid border restrictions he wasn't able to get a visa to enter the country. So in April before the season started, the club and player decided to mutually terminate the contract so he wasn't stuck in limbo waiting and he signed with a team in Uruguary instead. Should Cavalry be recorded in the infobox as a team with 0(0) since it technically was an official signing, even though he was never actually able to join the team, or would it make sense to remove it? There's a couple other players who this has happened to as well for this league recently RedPatch (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I would keep Cavalry with 0(0) as you mentioned, since he did sign with them formally.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also keep them with 0 (0). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, agree with this. Giant Snowman 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No sources for list articles?

@DrunkenGerman refuses to source their entries to List of association football families on the basis that "references in list articles are not necessary when all information is already referenced in the list's members articles" (see talk page). As far as I'm aware, all information on Wikipedia needs to be sourced, be it a list or otherwise. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: It should all be sourced on the list article. Also the saying "all information is already referenced in list's members articles" isn't necesarily true. I would say that when I was working on sourcing the list, around 85% weren't referenced on their articles and I added the sourcing to both articles. --SuperJew (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That isn't true, it should be sourced, even if it uses the same source as used in other articles. People shouldn't be expected to trawl through multiple pages to find the source for information in lists. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That's just nonsense - the content should be sourced everywhere it appears -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If the content is genuinely sourced in the subject's article, is it really that burdensome to just copy the source to the list article......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - it should be sourced on the list. Giant Snowman 17:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

One thing I noticed in the listicle is the haphazard use of flags. It looks like it's trying to indicate cases where family members play for different national teams, but I thought WP:MOSFLAG didn't allow use of flags in inline text. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to copy all the references. That is just creating redundancies without any additional gain. The only thing one achieves is that the list articles become extremely large in memory space and are thus unpractical to handle. Also there are many list articles that follow my reasonable approach like List of people from Berlin, List of people from Italy, List of people of Korean descent....I'm sure you can find hundreds.... DrunkenGerman (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that one articles has bad sourcing is not a justification for other articles to also have bad sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to copy all the references - then maybe wikipedia isn't for you. Cyclic referencing is not something we should be doing. Pointing to other articles that are also bad does not mean we should follow them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - I've given them a final warning for repeatedly adding unreferenced content (about BLPs no less) to articles. Giant Snowman 10:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

What's worse is that this list seems incredibly derivative. Why exactly have we got these inclusion criteria:

at least, one member of the family is capped by a national team on the senior level or an important person in the game of football (e.g., notable coaches, referees, club chairmen, etc.)
a second member must be a professional player or capped by a national team on the senior level.

This isn't something I've ever heard an RS comment on; why not a pair of coaches in the same family? What does a family mean? We have son-in-laws and nephews/cousins, even "distant relative" and some don't have a relationship listed. This seems like a completely weird subsection of articles that even if well sourced has major issues. Is this even a notable subject to talk about in list form? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Other point. How can we get rid off socially incompetent people like GiantSnowman? Where can I complain about him? When you take a look at his user contributions, he either sleeps or is in Wikipedia.... DrunkenGerman (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a personal attack, and I would revoke it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@DrunkenGerman: please raise concerns about my conduct at WP:ANI, bearing in mind (of course) WP:BOOMERANG and your violations of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NPA... Giant Snowman 15:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the points above: the criteria are needed as, otherwise, we would have brothers playing in the Italian 9th tier, or Lebanese 5th tier. We need some sort of limit on who "qualifies" for the article. Regarding the "need" for such an article, I can see both arguments for and against keeping it. I would slightly sway towards keeping it, as the topic of families in football is often covered by reliable sources (for example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, we definitely need a criteria, just why those particular criteria? Why is a referee who has a brother who is a player acceptable, but not two referees, or two national team coaches? Seems very nominal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah well, regarding the criteria for non-players I have no idea. It might be a good idea to re-visit the criteria altogether and, while we're at it, decide whether it would be a good idea to split the article (similarly to how we have List of African association football families). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on notability of this player Jack-Henry Sinclair

Started creating this article and as I got further into it, I started to doubt if it was good enough for WP:GNG and can't see it passing WP:NFOOTY but want others thoughts. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON if he gets the Olympic call up he is hoping for but otherwise he might just never get there.

Been in NZ Junior representative teams, was in the Wellington Phoenix academy and reserves and sat on the bench for the first team but never made the field. Played in New Zealand National League but that isn't professional and been to club world cup but again, not two professional teams. Thoughts? NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 04:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not right now. Fine in draft space, could probably be notable soon. Those External links in prose need a cleanup though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Lee Vilenski, yeah I stopped editing so hadn't cleaned up and had left references without information to cover different areas of his career as a too do. Will keep on file in case he does something that makes him notable enough. Cheers for looking over it. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 05:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

In the infobox, I don't believe the High schools he was at are supposed to be there. I believe that section is for post-secondary schools (18+), typically North American schools where NCAA universities serve as what would be development leagues, since there didn't use to be pro team academies until recently. RedPatch (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Player of the month awards

Why, on several league pages, we have player/talent/team of the month tables? A commercial company starts some kind of award only to get attention, and we publish it? What's the encyclopedic value of awards people forget in no time? As if we ever gonna say, "you remember December 2018, John Doe was elected player of the month". And I thought Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advertisement site.

I propose, to remove all these advertisements. --Sb008 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I don’t see the problem with anything like 2020–21 Premier League#Monthly awards or 2020–21 Serie A#Players' awards or 2021 Major League Soccer season#Awards. Pretty much every award in the universe is created by a company or industry group to get attention. We don’t ignore the Golden Boot simply because it’s an advert for Adidas. We have an article for the Golden Globes despite it being a promotional vehicle for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. What matters is that they’re notable enough to receive independent coverage. As for the awards themselves, they give us insight into the key players of a given season. As long as the coverage is not WP:UNDUE, I’m not really understanding the issue here. Ytoyoda (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

By "commercial company" to you mean the leagues themselves? Seems an odd remark.--Echetus Xe 09:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If we look at 2020–21 Premier League#Monthly awards, is there any independant coverage? The only ones I see covering the awards are the companies involved (EA SPORTS, Barclays, Budweiser) and The Premier League. Is there any coverage in news papers or other independant sources? True, most awards are commercially driven, but there's an essential difference between the Golden Boot and the Golden Globes on the one hand, and these monthly awards on the other hand. The winners of the Golden Boot and the Golden Globes will get worldwide media attention, where the player of the month is in the news nowhere, unless it's a program/paper/media sponsored by one of the companies related to the awards. In a biograhy of Lionel Messim there's a fair chance it will be mentioned that he won the Golden Boot 6 times. But the change of being mentioned that he was player of the month for I don't know how many times, is as good as zero. Who cares about these monthly awards, besides the companies using them as an advertisement tool? Nobody!!! A lot of football fans can probably tell who won the Golden boot or was elected player of the year, last season or even the season before. But how many can tell who was player of the month, last month? These awards are not notible. If they start a hottest playerwife of the month award, we're going to list them on Wiki too? These awards are not independantly covered, not notible and basicly nothing more than advertisement. Info that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. On the 2020–21 Premier League#Monthly awards page, roughly 20% of the references is about these awards. One could think these awards are more relevant than the league itself. --Sb008 (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's independent coverage. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Iraqi-English Sunday league footballer

Apparently, Percy Lynsdale, an Iraq international in the 50s, moved to Norwich in 1951 and played Sunday league in Manchester. Is someone maybe able to find some sources about his time in England? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Assists tables

I think it's completely overkill on stats, but this IP 41.13.4.19 keeps adding these tables to Man City seasons, I am pretty sure before we do not do assists tables, thought we talked this over before. I have been removing them under overkill WP:NOSTATS, but they just keep coming back. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, very much not things we should be including. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - remove on sight. Giant Snowman 17:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo deletion request

You are invited to join in the discussion here to help reach a consensus on deleting a photo which was used for trolling only. So far I am the only one who has given a view on it.

I have managed to find that photo on Facebook by searching the name for suspicious reasons (and also this photo), which is still available at present, is found on the social networking site as well).

Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: How is this relevant to WP:FOOTY? --SuperJew (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SuperJew:, it was used on the article Karen Bardsley when this edit was made with the existing photo replaced with the one the uploader uploaded on Thursday. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: yep, this is a long term vandalism, who has been vandalising this page as well as numerous footballers. Giant Snowman 19:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan and GiantSnowman: Thanks for the explanation --SuperJew (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Referee Article Refreshes (& Referee Task Force)

Hi Team,

I've left some notes on the Referee article talk page about refreshing the article to make it more approachable and concise. I can't see a Referee Taskforce here yet - but I do see 2 active members listed as refs. It would be great to make a start on a refresh in time for the 21/22 laws coming in to force. Thoughts?

gj1 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Image or no image?

Is a low quality image really better than nothing? 15:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing. Giant Snowman 15:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

lol, that's pretty poor quality, better without I'd say! heh. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Rather have none, tbh. Kante4 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a few photos of some New York Red Bulls II players I took with my phone that I will upload and they are not the best whatsoever but this, this one is something else. I would say get rid unless it can be enhanced. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the preferred way of presenting the league in the career statistics table for a player?

Basically the title here. Is it preferred that we just mention the league once like it is for Lionel Messi where La Liga is mentioned once or multiple times like with Cesc Fàbregas where for each season with a club it is mentioned again what league he played in. I usually do the latter but want to make sure that is correct. Cheers! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would not rowspan the league (so, like Fabregas). However, in Fabregas' specific case, I would rowspan them as he has only played in one specific league for each club (Arsenal -> PL, Barcelona -> La Liga, etc.) I think the general rule is to not rowspan, unless it looks "neater" to do so (so, in Messi and Fabregas' case, I would; in Mouhammed-Ali Dhani's case, no). 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was not to use rowspan, due to accessibility reasons? Giant Snowman 18:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Our MoS just gives a slight general preference to not rowspanning, but I think it should dealt with on as case by case basis. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Premier League goal scoring keepers

By any chance, do we have an article for goalkeepers for scoring goals like Allison did today? Govvy (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: I don't think we have one for the Premier League specifically (I think there is only six anyway), but we do have List of goalscoring goalkeepers. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of interesting notes on that article, I like the one with the match being abandoned and they allowed the keeper to score at the start of the game in the reply. Govvy (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick question about that list: some of the goalkeepers are credited for goals scored when they played as forwards. Seems like the list should be limited to goals scored while playing as goalkeeper? Otherwise, Jorge Campos is a serious omission. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I remember that - people kept adding his one goal to his infobox even though it wasn't a league game. Actually, I've just checked the article history and that was still going on ten years after the game! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, should Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored be renamed to Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored goals? The current name makes it sound like it covers 'keepers who have been successful with women in nightclubs....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

heh, does seem more logical to me to make that change. Govvy (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Overly wordy - fine as it is IMHO. Giant Snowman 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree to the rename. Surely the current title suggests own goals are also included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree it needs a clarification to exclude own goals (which are far more common). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the article and category names the same? So Category:Goalscoring goalkeepers. If that's too ambiguous, then the article itself should also be renamed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That sounds sensible -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've proposed Category:Association football goalkeepers who have scored for renaming (discussion). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add this to the MfD as well, but surely we need association football in there, there's lots of sports that have a goalkeeper. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On an also related note, I created a draft for PL goalkeeper scorers: Draft:List of goalkeepers who have scored in the Premier League. Feel free to contribute- I'm sure it's notable, but going to add more sources and info. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Why does a Premier League subset deserve a separate article? --SuperJew (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree - this does not merit a separate article! Giant Snowman 20:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not bad for a draft article, looks like it can pass GNG to me. However the shortness, guess it might be expanded over time. I am not sure it's needed just yet, but it's certainly a good idea for the future. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Goalkeepers scoring in the Premier League is rare- and list of all goal scorers is well covered. They're much more interesting and notable than other countries where goalkeepers take attacking direct free kicks and penalties. Loads of people of the List of goalscoring goalkeepers are just penalty takers. And some of them have scored some/all of their goals as outfielder. And so I believe a separate PL list would pass GNG, but looking for more sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Pilgrims, Pilgrims everywhere!

Doing some reading and it became apparent that articles linking to Pilgrims F.C. were in fact talking about four completely different clubs of the same name.

Pilgrims F.C. - a London based side which entered the FA Cup during the 1870s and 1880s.
The Pilgrims F.C. - an early 1900s touring side, which twice visited the USA
Pilgrims F.C. - Brian McColl's database of clubs (available on his site here http://scottish-football-historical-archive.com/clublist1.xls) shows there was a senior club in the Govan area of Glasgow called Pilgrims operating from 1880 to 1885, this club then merged with South Western to form a second Pilgrims club that operated in 1885-1886.
Pilgrims F.C. - An American side referenced by the 1923–24 National Challenge Cup article.

The existing article covered the first, so I have spun up a stub for number two and corrected the links where applicable. The US National Challenge Cup article continues to link to Pilgrims F.C., though this is incorrect.

Grunners (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Good research/work! Giant Snowman 15:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - nice job there, pilgrim SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick note, the side that played in 1923-24 National Challenge Cup, the article says they were from Ontario, making them Canadian, not American. RedPatch (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Aymeric Laporte

Why has the protection been removed? The well meaning but incorrect edits and the outright vandalism will be ongoing for at least another month, and then when he gets a cap it will be a fresh round of vandalism. Crowsus (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Because protection expired. I've requested another semi-protection. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He is 'French' for us until and only if he plays for Spain... Giant Snowman 20:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, since you can only make one change of nationality, my understanding is that he can only play for Spain and will never represent France. So it seems like removing his nationality from the lede is the way to go. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, if he never represents Spain, then he remains French - which is how the sources describe him. Giant Snowman 21:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I would keep French until he makes his international debut for Spain, when I would remove the nationality from the lead. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree - he is French until he represents Spain, after which we remove nationality and say 'Born in France, he represented them at youth level before switching allegiance to Spain, making his senior international debut for Spain in XXXX' or similar, as we do with every other player's article in the same position. Giant Snowman 21:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If FIFA approve his switch, he's Spanish regardless of whether he plays a match. Hack (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't take away the fact that Laporte was born in France as a French citizen, and continues to be French to this day (he hasn't renounced his citizenship), in addition to the fact that he represented France internationally for five years. If he makes his debut, we'll remove his nationality from the opening sentence; until then, French should be kept. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hack: FIFA already approved the switch. Laporte can play for Spain at Euro 2020 if selected. – Pee Jay 18:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So his footballing nationality is now officially Spanish. Hack (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And because you can only switch once after age 21, he can never represent France again. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The switch officially occurs once he actually makes his debut, no? As of today, couldn't he technically still represent France? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

An application to reverse the change-of-association request would be needed for him to represent France. Hack (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Scottish football champions

Quick question - can anyone figure out how to centre-align the text in the infobox? I've been trying for ages but can't make it work........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it's using a custom table rather than the standard infobox template Template:Infobox football league, which is used on the main Scottish Premiership article? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It was added in 2008 [9] and doesn't look like anyone has changed it. To be fair, it is the same as the one used on List of English football champions so I'm guessing it's because the top division has been under different entities over the years (Football League/Premier League and Scottish Premiership/Scottish Premier League/Scottish Football League Premier Division). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, ChrisTheDude looks like it was fixed in Special:Diff/1023795219, which fixed an error with the center tags. Now showing centred. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to turn that style-table into a template? Govvy (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion?

Hi guys, me and Daemonickangaroo2018 have been having a dispute over an accessdate at Adam Lallana and are unable to come to an agreement. Daemonickangaroo2018 changed the accessdate to today's date as he hade visited the site to check the facts and that the date should be changed since that's the most recent time it's been "accessed". I don't agree with that and feel that the date should be kept to the one that it was originally added. Would like to get others opinions on the matter. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

From Template:Cite web: access-date: Full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article would suggest Daemonickangaroo2018 is right. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As the source cited is Soccerbase, which is updated after every appearance, the access-date should be the last date on which it was checked. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve? Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Standard practice is to update the access-date to when the source was used to verify the current content. If we're citing a url apparently last accessed in 2020 to verify stats as of last week, it wouldn't look too convincing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Per above. If it has been verified, the access date should be updated. This ensures that not only is the data accurate, but also verifies the link is not dead and / or its last active state (handy for InternetArchive searches). Koncorde (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Daemonickangaroo is correct to do that, I've often checked citations and failed to do that, so he deserves credit here. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Mistake understood and accepted. Sorry Daemonickangaroo2018. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Glad we all agree. Daemonickangaroo2018 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

New logo, anyone?

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Swansea_City_AFC_Logo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Jamil Roberts

Can someone please take a look at this article? It has no footnotes, which are required for biographies of living persons, and has been tagged as needing better references since 2013, but not improved, and was vandalized in January, but this was not noticed until today. So can someone please verify that the information is now correct, and provide at least one good in-line reference? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. RedPatch (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Her Football Hub

Two questions:

Should mentions of awards and rankings by Her Football Hub be sourced to a publication other than Her Football Hub? My understanding of WP:INDEPENDENT tells me you need a third-party source, so I removed the self-sourced mentions from several articles, and they were reverted by Krellan456 at Lily Simkin without explanation and Katie Wilkinson with an unsupported claim that it was notable. The user also reverted at Siobhan Chamberlain and Jessica Sigworth, though they were re-reverted by Hjk1106. I want to respect WP:BRD snd want to avoid an edit war, but it seems like WP:INDEPENDENT is clear here.
Is Her Football Hub a WP:RS? This one, I'm less clear about, but I noticed that Krellan456 went on a string of edits adding herfootballhub.com articles as sources, often where sourcing already existed. I'm assuming good faith but redudant sourcing is clunky and it comes off like linkspam. I'm tempted to revert the changes but wanted to get the community's input before doing so.

Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No view on this site as an RS, but if an award hasn't received any third-party coverage then it isn't a notable award. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason i use HerFootballhub.com as a source so often is that it is the only womens football based website i can find other than shekicks that i have ever found. most other are general sports sites just covering women occasionally. from a personal perspective if you have more like this id be appreciate the sites. (User:Krellan456)

Her Football Hub is a reliable source. I think this user is perhaps a fan of their website. They hold a good editing standard throughout their work and are a reliable source of information in the sport. Alvin654 (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alvin654 and Krellan456: I'm not that concerned about herfootballhub.com as a reliable source, especially since it's being used to support mostly WP:ROUTINE events. What I don't see addressed is using links from the site to cite awards and rankings. You need to find third-party sources to establish their notability. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree the awards should be deleted for now. I’ve just re-read the links you’ve sent and your understanding of the rules is the same as mine. Alvin654 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikitable sorting

I've noticed, that when you click on the sort option where it's the column with a players name, it will sort to the flag-icons name and not the players name. Is that fixable with the flag-icon being in the same field? Is it possible to have a column sort by name while still having the flag-icon in that field? At the moment, it doesn't work. Govvy (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Got a specific example? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should be if you use the data-sort-value parameter. So put |data-sort-value="Édouard, Odsonne"| in front of the cell's content, just like you would with colspan or align, and it should sort on the player's name rather than the flag icon. As an example:

Player
Kyle Lafferty
Ianis Hagi
Odsonne Édouard

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It is completely fixable as per the above, any reason why we are using {{flagicon}} and not {{flagathlete}}? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not know that existed, that would be so useful especially for pages like 1973 Oceania Cup where half the goalscorers have a French flag next to their name and none of them represented France. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You can also use the sort template, for example for the first row above: {{sort|Lafferty, Kyle|{{flagicon|NIR}} [[Kyle Lafferty]]}} --SuperJew (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at the sortable on 2020–21 Manchester City F.C. season, I was trying to work out the stats table. I really not a fan of the format used on Man City season pages for statistics. O well. Govvy (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

GAR notification: Djibouti women's national football team

Djibouti women's national football team, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Macclesfield Town (again)

The article about the liquidated club, Macclesfield Town F.C., is again being IP-edited to write about the phoenix club, Macclesfield F.C. (yet to play a league game); I also note that an article has been started at Macclesfield FC. If an admin reads this, can the main MTFC article be protected again for a while, please. Paul W (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have protected the Macclesfield Town F.C. article, and moved the article about the phoenix club to Macclesfield F.C. with no commentary on notability etc. Giant Snowman 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Paul W (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

why are we treating it as separate anyway? all the new owner said is that he was going to re-brand the club.Muur (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Because it's a separate entity? Giant Snowman 21:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

based on what? their badge even still has "since 1874" on it. robbie savage: "This is a Club steeped in history and is etched within the narrative of both the town and wider community in general. As such, I felt so privileged when I was asked by the new owner to take up the role of Director of Football. Grassroots football is something which I am incredibly passionate about and combined with the exciting plans for the Club overall, I am fully committed to playing my part in seeing all our dreams turn into reality." how can it have "history" if its only just existed now? theyre also using the same social media accounts. [twitter, youtube, facebook, instagram. Muur (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact (as detailed below) that it is a separate legal entity. What they call themselves or have on their badge is irrelevant. Giant Snowman 18:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally it is decided by the footballing authorities if the club is considered a continuation, or a new club. Koncorde (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The legal entity Macclesfield Town F.C. was wound up. It ceased to exist so, strictly, could not be 'rebranded'. The new club is a new legal entity, incorporated on 6 October 2020 (three weeks after MTFC was wound up), with entirely new owners and with a different name to distinguish it from the liquidated company. The purchased assets will have included social media accounts, etc, enabling it to build upon the foundations laid down as MTFC, and staff and supporters will, naturally, regard it has having 'history' or heritage. However, the restart in NWCL is a clear sign from the football authorities that, to them, MFC constitutes a new club. I think Wikipedia's treatment of this situation is also consistent with phoenix club Bury A.F.C.'s formation and start in the NWCL while the original Bury F.C. has fallen into administration. Paul W (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Bury's badge does say 2020 on it though. Didn't this all happen with Rangers F.C., "founded March 1872"? We are supposed to reflect the primary sources rather than make our own judgement. The Macclesfield phoenix club are yet to even play a match yet so it's probably a bit early to debate whether to have separate articles or not. They can always be merged in the future if they frequently find themselves being referred to as a club founded in 1874 rather than 2020.--Echetus Xe 13:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Rangers is a controversial decision - and there was a lot of pressure to ensure they were perceived as a continuation rather than a new entity. They were "too big" to allow their history to be wiped it seems. Koncorde (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

These situations are heavily dependent upon context. Macclesfield F.C. is not Macclesfield Town F.C., as the latter no longer exists, but Darlington show you can play four seasons under a different name and then assume the history of the old entity. In Italy, this happens all the time: fold and re-start as a new company in Serie D. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and in due course the FA might 'unite' the clubs as they did with Darlington - but for now we consider them separate. Giant Snowman 18:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Live updates

I'm aware is not possible to do live updates but is it possible to update player's statistics when (s)he is substituted during the game? Dr Salvus 21:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's best not to do that. There's no harm in waiting until the game is over and the result is officially recorded. – Pee Jay 08:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's OK if a player has been substituted off. Giant Snowman 18:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not wait? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, why not wait the last few minutes. No need to rush before the game is over. Kante4 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies here. We should wait for at least the match reports to come out. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Claudio Gomes

Since Claudio Gomes played for Jong PSV, would he be added to Category:PSV Eindhoven players and Category:Jong PSV players? Or just Category:Jong PSV players? Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The latter as he has never played for the senior team. REDMAN 2019 (talk)

Agree, but my understanding is you would add PSV Eindhoven if he played for their youth team(s). Crowsus (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Jong isn't a youth team, it's a team in its own right that play in the Dutch football pyramid (albeit a reserve team). Had he also played for PSV at youth level he would have the PSV Eindhoven players category as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Australian international association football caps

We already have List of Australia international soccer players (and sub-articles, broken down by number of caps) - do we also need List of Australian international association football caps which duplicates the information, simply re-organising it? Giant Snowman 11:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The first is only player with over 10 caps. --SuperJew (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I said we also have "sub-articles, broken down by number of caps" e.g. List of Australia international soccer players (4–9 caps) - so why do we also need the 'list of caps' article? Giant Snowman 11:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's called soccer in Australia so the association football article should be a redirect. I don't see anything in the association football article that isn't in the soccer article but if there is it wouldn't be difficult to add it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't see why this extra article is needed. All it does is show where in the overall numbered list of debutants a player is, and If anyone desires to know that, it's in the PDF ref (albeit its retrieved 5 years ago and last updated 15 years ago?? Surely there's a more up to date version) and can be added as a field for all players without much disruption, although with 500+ it would take a bit of time. Crowsus (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll take to AFD in due course, unless anybody fancies it first...? Giant Snowman 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Play-offs column?

Should we keep the play-offs column in the season to season table at Juventus F.C. Under-23? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

no, not needed. Giant Snowman 10:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait, why would we remove them? They still participate in the playoffs, should probably be included, no? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see why we would delete that column. – Pee Jay 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally find the column a bit much (especially if we were to also add a "play-outs" column for the relegation play-outs). I don't really have a firm opinion though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, it is a notable post-season tournament in Serie C. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated links in the infobox – WP:OVERLINK?

Hi folks. Having frequently come across infoboxes with repeated links over the years it recently struck me that I couldn't come up with a good reason to flout WP:OVERLINK in that case. Is there one?

Take the recently deceased Torkild Brakstad as an example. He had quite a few stints at his hometown club Molde FK – as a youth player, as a senior player and as a manager. It seemed blatant overlinking to me to link every one of those instances so I decided to only link the club once in every section ("Youth career", "Senior career", "Teams managed") of the infobox. What do others think? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "a link may be repeated in infoboxes". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Full quote: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.

Applying that to the example of Torkild Brakstad, would you say more links would be "helpful"? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I personally would like every instance in the infobox. Giant Snowman 20:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables and templates (which include infoboxes) are exempt from OL. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Can you point me to where this is written in policy? MOS:REPEATLINK states "a link may be repeated" "if helpful", that's not a blanket exemption. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that specifically says after that "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." - this is obviously on a personal level, but in practice there's rarely reasons not to link these items. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:OVERLINK would be one. For instance, I don't see how it would be helpful to link "Molde" six times at Torkild Brakstad when they've had few stints elsewhere. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Robby, but it seems that Lee Vilenski’s argument is strong. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: I'm seeing more personal preference than arguments. "if helpful" would suggest to me that linking more than one instance should be the exception to the rule, not the other way around.

Why "in practice there's rarely reasons not to link these items" remains opaque. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, if I had seen Brakstad's page without context a part of me would have thought that maybe the unlinked "Molde"s were referring to an amateur team, different to Molde FK. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That's likely because currently we link everything but amateur teams and that's what you're used to seeing. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. That is ambiguous statement: it could mean that you can repeat multiple times in infoboxes, or that you can repeat a link that's in the article in the infobox as well. I've always taken it to mean the second. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the statement is ambiguous, but that we should try and keep things consistent across Wikipedia. Since most other infoboxes are filled in, I would prefer if all instances of Molde to be filled in for his infobox as well, even if it's admittedly superfluous.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Layton Maxwell

I've added the personal life section of recent events about this former footballer. I was wondering how should I deal with the lead paragraph, footballer turned gangster? Govvy (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a similar issue at Tyrell Robinson. He has not been convicted or sentenced, so I would not update the lede until that happens (in due course given he pleaded guilty). If it does, mention it in a brief, neutral manner like at Mr Robinson. If not, it does not need to go in the lede. Giant Snowman 09:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

K, cheers for the input, updates on article. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations wanted - potential entries for List of footballers killed during World War II

Reposted and updated version of original now archived.

As main contributor to this article, I would like to flag up for attention of others on the project a number of candidates for the list that are already wiki-articled and known or believed to have been killed in or died as a result of circumstances brought on by the war (eg execution, in enemy captivity, effects of wounds etc) but which so far lack a reliable citation regarding their death which is preconditional to inclusion in the list. A few have no death circumstances described in the text of their article but I note have been put on category lists that suggest someone knew/believed they died in wartime circumstances. I also include those whose death circumstances are disputed - see their talk pages for further detail - and are in need of a conclusive ruling in or out.

Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
Walter Berg (Germany) - alleged died in Soviet captivity after capture in war in 1949
Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
Henri Bierna (Belgium)
Walter Claus-Oehler (Germany)
Eddy de Neve (Netherlands) - also disputed death circumstance and identity
Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
Hermann Flick (Germany)
Franz Jelinek (Austria)
Werner Klaas (Germany)
Georg Köhl (Germany)-source provided by Microwave Anarchist (see below) has been added byCloptonson (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC) added also article page from Nurnberg FC site.Cloptonson (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Karol Kossok (Poland)
Franz Krumm (Germany)
Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
Richard Malik (Germany)
Alexander Martinek (Austria)
Otto Martwig (Germany)
Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
Hans Mengel (Germany)
Otto Nerz (Germany) - died in Soviet captivity within Germany 1949; disputable death date detail, entire article unsourced until I added citation to Olympedia which however has no indication how he died.Cloptonson (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added to article information sourced to Tennis Borussia website article (German language).Cloptonson (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Adam Obrubanski (Poland)
Slavko Pavletic (Croatia)
Mimis Pierrakos (Greece)
Alfreds Plade (Latvia)
Eriks Raisters (Latvia)
Stasys Razma (Lithuania) - disputed death details
Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
Janis Rozitis (Latvia)
Holger Salin (Finland)
Otto Siffling (Germany) - It is listed under the list on German Wikipedia, but says he died of pleurisy. I've added it here in case he is found to have served during the war.
Aleksandrs Stankus (Latvia)
Erwin Stührk (Germany)
István Tóth (Hungary) - Source provided by Microwave Anarchist added to article byCloptonson (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Willi Völker (Germany)
Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
Heinz Warnken (Germany)
Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death is disputed

There may be additions coming onto the list so I encourage watch this space! Others are welcome to add. Please let us know if sources are found and added into pages.

In acknowledgement to those who commented but was too late to make reply:

SportingFlyer T.C said: 'The Dinamo history website says Babić died after the partisans entered Zagreb, which implies he was a victim of the war.'
Comment: Citation to establish manner of his death still sought.
Microwave Anarchist said: 'ISBN 9783895332418 looks like it may have some content on the Germans, but I don't have access to it.'
Comment: Someone else may be able to look this up.
Microwave Anarchist said they found what 'looks like an adequate reference for Toth, but I haven't added it yet as I would prefer a Hungarian speaker to confirm what the source says.'
Comment: Hungarian speakers, look up the previous posting in archive page 140.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloptonson (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: this would confirm that Georg Köhl died in military service. @Norden1990: As a Hungarian speaker, would you be able to confirm that this source verifies the information given in István Tóth's article. Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Quick query - publisher of the book the mention appears in? (Does not show clearly.)Cloptonson (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: The publisher is WSC Books (the book publishing branch of When Saturday Comes) and the location of publication is London. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now added the source to Kohl's article.Cloptonson (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have also added an article page on the German language FC Nurnberg site, which sheds more light on his war years.Cloptonson (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Yes, the source verifies the information, Tóth was executed by the pro-Nazi government Arrow Cross Party in February 1945. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added that source to Toth's article.Cloptonson (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: this would suggest that Nerz died at Sachsenhausen from cerebral edema in 1949 after being taken prisoner after the war, though Tor! says "Nerz would practically starve in Soviet captivity and passed away from meningitis (I assume that caused cerebral edema) in 1949, although some of the other detainees claim he was dead as early as 1947". I am unsure whether his inclusion on the list would be justified given that he died well after the war in Europe ended. Either way, its an interesting article, and a few other good sources exist on him ([10], [11] as well as earlier pages of Tor!) should anyone wish to expand the article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The 'List' is not exclusively confined to those who died solely inside the dates 1 September 1939(invasion of Poland)-2 September 1945 (the Japanese surrender) but also includes few who died in the few years following hostilities in circumstances consequential to their involvement in the war, in which could be counted those who died as POWs (like Nerz) or those executed for war crimes. Note that some national war grave agencies have differing cut off points; the British Commonwealth War Graves Commission classes as Second World War dead those who died after end of hostilities up to 31 December 1947 who were serving in armed forces or died as result of service, enemy action injury or enemy captivity. The German (VDK) and Italian agencies may have a longer remit because of the varying time lags until their POW nationals were repatriated.Cloptonson (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@MicrowaveAnarchist: I have just read the magazine article (the first source you brought up), it sheds more light on his wartime activities than his wikipedia article currently shows, and to which I may add detail on the strength of that source. As an SA Obersturmbannfuhrer who in his medical capacity had been attached to a military hospital he had qualification to be a POW.Cloptonson (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Bernardo Silva

There's a user who has a disruptive behavior and is constantly edit warring who frequently adds non-encyclopedical or biased info in pages about S.L. Benfica. I frequently remove this kind of info but he continues to revert me.

Regarding Bernadro Silva, I think it is irrelevant what club Silva supports and I think it is non-encyclopedical info. It does not add anything by knowing if Silva is a Benfica or a Porto supporter. What do you think? P3DRO (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You raised this with me on my talk page a few weeks ago - and I said that information like that is valid if it supported by a reliable source, which it appears to be. This is a personal issue between you and this editor, who have had beef for years. Giant Snowman 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FC Gagra

Someone should take a look at Football Club Gagra. I wanted to request a move to FC Gagra to match other Georgian clubs' names, but it seems that an article was created there in 2008. On 30 March, VilsonF5 created a new article under the longer name, and on 29 April they apparently copied the entire content from the old article into their new one, creating a redirect in the process. Most of the existing links seem to point to the old article name. Phanto1999 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the manual move, and warned them on their talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Phanto1999 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Pelé

An exceptionally arrogant editor has made a few changes to Pelé recently to "correct" some stats because apparently "it is my duty to re-change your EXRERIMEMNTAL STATS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, I KNOW." They did raise a talk page discussion in March but no one responded so now they've decided to take it upon themselves to make the changes to the article without consensus. I'm sure we've been over Pelé's statistical record many, many times, but given that it's an absolute minefield, I thought it would be better if someone with more knowledge of the situation than me took a look at it. Cheers. – Pee Jay 12:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It relates to the List of footballers with 500 or more goals article, which is also flawed.--Echetus Xe 12:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This user seems to have made it their mission to impose their opinions on articles about old footballers who's goal tally's are perhaps not 100% due to how long ago they played. The Josef Bican article had a similar issue in January. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2021–22 Juventus F.C. (women) season

Does WP:CRYSTALBALL applies in this article? Dr Salvus 17:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I think 2021–22 seasons are OK at this stage. Giant Snowman 20:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, At this point I don't understand why did Anarchyte drafted this article Dr Salvus 20:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no real information in the article when it was draftified and there was no mention of CRYSTAL in the process. Spike 'em (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned CRYSTAL to hint at the fact that we may not need an article if it's entirely devoid of anything that demonstrates that it's more than just planned; see the entire 2021 Formula One World Championship. While we don't have a deadline, the mainspace has standards, and having content is one of them (of course recognising that A3 would not apply here). Anarchyte (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Admin help with deleted articles

Kia ora, I'm wondering if it is possible to get deleted articles back and if so, can I get an admin to move them to my draft space to recreate them as I believe the clubs will now pass notability guidelines. There was a whole lot of club merges in NZ that formed new clubs as part of looking ahead to the new National League struture we had, some articles where created prematurely for the new clubs when they wouldn't meet notability guidelines, which now having being part of the Chatham Cup and playing in our new National League, I think I can make them pass. Northern Rovers and Auckland United FC. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: See WP:REFUND. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Nehme1499:, should have known that. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@NZFC: I'm happy to restore articles deleted by PROD if you wish. Giant Snowman 09:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: thank you for the offer, knew someone here would have been able to do it. They have since been draftified, so going to get them up to notability level now. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 19:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

removing the piping in tournaments

SPC27205 (talk · contribs) is removing the piping in tournament leads and instead of having either [[association football|football]] or [[association football|soccer]] (based on WP:LANGVAR) the editor is leaving a bare [[association football]]. Is there consensus to make this change? Does it make sense to do so? I've reverted a few, but the extend seems like there's an underlying plan (although none of the edits are explained). Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's the worst thing to say association football on the first mention and use "football" thereafter, but your mileage may vary. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, football is unambiguous based on context. And making mass changes without consensus is disruptive. They would need an RFC consensus to get a consensus to do this. All these edits should be reverted. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Particularly if there's a link to association football... Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that it's okay to make a unilateral change to multiple articles when there's an established consensus. More that it would not be terrible if the first reference to the sport was its formal name. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

TBF the only articles I could see (at a quick glance) where this change was made relate to the World Cup, and I would argue that, given the global scope of the tournament the simple term "football" is very much not unambiguous.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Announced departures

Several players like Georginio Wijnaldum and Memphis Depay have confirmed they are leaving their current clubs at the end of the season. However, should we put "20??–2021" or should we keep their spell at the club to "20??–" in the infobox? And secondly, until when? When should we put the –2021? At the announcement of departure, the final match, or the expiration of the contract (usually 30 June)? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Upon the expiration of the contract on 30 June. LTFC 95 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - wait until the contracts expire before updating to add '–2021' etc. Giant Snowman 18:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wijnaldum's is 1st July. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

theyre all 1st of july, since the final day of the contract is june 30 - making july 1st the first day as free agents. Muur (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Georginio Wijnaldum article may need protecting for a while - lots of IP edits relating to Barcelona. Paul W (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:CambridgeBayWeather for protecting the Wijnaldum page. Paul W (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Josué Gómez del Rosal needs to be moved to Josué Gómez as per WP:COMMONNAME, however that redirects to another footballer's page, Aarón Gómez, whose middle name is Josué. Can someone make the appropriate move? JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a user is creating these without any consideration for their common name. Víctor Isaác Mora needs to be moved to either Víctor Mora (footballer) or Víctor Mora (footballer, born 2000) since Víctor Hugo Mora, Mexican footballer born in 1974, already exists. JTtheOG (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well this link says that the player goes by Josue Aaron Gomez (first name Josue not his middle name), so seems as if it's a valid redirect. Perhaps that becomes a disambiguation page for both players. Either way a RM is probably the best route RedPatch (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree - please raise at WP:RM. Giant Snowman 18:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Displaying club names in infoboxes

There are few clubs in Uruguay which share their name with foreign clubs such as River Plate and Liverpool. So what would be the right way to display their names in a player's infobox? I usually use River Plate Montevideo & Liverpool Montevideo in both infobox and rest of the article. But recently another editor reverted few of them to just River Plate. I thought it would be a bit confusing for readers who would obviously think of the Argentine club first.

Chances are very less that a player would play for both original Liverpool and Liverpool Montevideo. But I would prefer to use Liverpool Montevideo in the infobox, even if the player have only played for the Uruguayan side. Would like to hear your opinions on this. Kokoeist (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume the Montevideo clubs don't mention the country in their actual names, so should we really be doing so? Is there really much chance of confusion? If there really is, maybe a comma or brackets would be appropriate between club name and countryHiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest there is plenty of chance of confusion. Given the number of South American players who have played in the Premier League, if someone saw in a player's infobox that he had played first for Montevideo Wanderers and then for Liverpool, I suspect the first instinct of the majority of people would be to think that he had moved to the English club, who are about 1000000 times more well-known outside Uruguay..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen an edit-war over that in the past, Montevideo shouldn't be removed from the info-box, not only is it disruptive, it makes the information incomplete and miss-leading. Govvy (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this can lead to problems when the difference in notability is less pronounced. I'd lead in the infobox per the name of the clubs as HiLo48 said, and make sure in the prose to clear it (for example: "Templeton joined Uruguayan club Liverpool, based in Montevideo") --SuperJew (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There is the same issue with Brazilian clubs, of which there are a number with different names and we usually disambiguate display by the state initials. For Liverpool in Uruguay I usually use 'Liverpool (URU)'. Giant Snowman 18:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion Playoff Appearances

Does appearance and goal in a promotion playoff match count in the infobox and career statistics of a player? HobiBalap (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@HobiBalap: No, only regular season league games are counted (+ state league for Brazilian teams). Play-offs/play-outs should be included under the "Other" column in the career statistics table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously it does form part of the player's career statistics, but it should not be included in the infobox figures -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nehme and ChrisTheDude for the quick response. I really appreciate it. HobiBalap (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait, do we actually add them for Brazilian state leagues? We have a sort of same system in India (moving away from it) and I never add those, just I-League games. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Saudi second and third div teams

Like Mossdah FC which I just saw in the new page feed, I don't see how the team passes WP:BASIC let alone GNG, then I saw the template!

How on earth are all those clubs, new articles going to pass? There is clearly an issue here. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So does no one have any thoughts on all these club articles? Govvy (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised they have all stayed, a quick look and it appears a lot of them have edits that relates to an account that has been banned for sock puppet as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhsohaib/Archive. Not sure you can mass nominate them though, is there anything that could potential keep the articles, like a countries knock out cup that the clubs may have taken part in? Maybe needs someone who has time to go through them all but otherwise if they are just non-professional clubs and there is nothing that potential make them notable with some work, then they should go.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LTA is back again

[12] - some more random targets for this person's nonsense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

...and they're gone again. Giant Snowman 09:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of the 'LTA is back again', the Spanish Wikipedia page Matthew Lowton has received the same editing behaviour; I'd noticed that because the same IP edited my talk page there also. It seems we can't get rid of the troll unless edit filters can improve the disallow criteria further. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And also at Commons with my talk page again with same nonsense again, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Should this website be considered a reliable source? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have always treated it as such. Giant Snowman 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's some random bloke's personal website, so no. However, I've always considered the history pages reliable. The player profiles are another matter, and you do need to be wary: some of them have a lot of content that's clearly been taken from Wikipedia pages. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, speaking of, do we count National Football Teams as reliable? I recently had a conversation where I claimed it was but wanted to check? Felixsv7 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

NFT is (more or less) reliable but incomplete (and only has partial data from 1992 onwards). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

NFT is also some random bloke's personal website, and isn't WP:RS. As Nehme says, it's incomplete, and there's no apparent indication of what's completely covered and what isn't. It's more or less accurate in that if it says a player appeared in a particular match, he probably did, but total appearances for anything other than recent appearances for countries with reliable published records are likely incomplete. Further, the site owner has his own ideas about what count as "FIFA matches" which don't necesarily correspond to FIFA's ideas or those of national federations. But everybody turns a blind eye... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would never treat such a source as reliable. Unless Tony Hill or the site itself has been recognized in some way by the club and/or media as being of relevance or being a noteworthy source. Similarly, I was wary of using the "hobby project" ifkdb.se (or ifkdb.com for English) as a database source for IFK Göteborg information, until both the club itself and regional media paid attention to the site. In contrast to the Leeds site, it also clearly states exactly which sources are being used and the methodology of collecting the data. – Elisson • T • C • 14:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So if I was to nominate a article which has this site as one of it's sources for GA, would likely be told to find a different one in the review? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the richness of differing opinions on Wikipedia, I don't know if it would be likely (and I have personally never bothered with the GA process) ... But at least it wouldn't be unlikely. :) – Elisson • T • C • 15:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Editing without discussing, again

An IP editor has been editing a few pages without discussing if these players had officially retired from the English team or not, see this edit as an example. Looks like some of us agree that the pages should remain as it is until official news comes in announcing retirement instead of original research being in place. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, if a players has played/been called up in the past few years (less than 5?) then we should not assume they are 'retired' from international football. Giant Snowman 15:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think an end date to national team years is an indication that a player is retired from international play, and I don't think it's a problem to show Dominic Solanke's national team years as just "2017".

For one thing, there's no such thing as "officially retired" from a national team. You can announce it and politely ask the manager to not call you up, but you don't put in formal retirement papers. Jamie Vardy and James Milner can still play for England. There's a mutual, unofficial understanding that they won't show up for camp if called up.

Second, being on a national team isn't a continuous assignment like it is with a club. With a club, a player signs a contract that runs for months or years. With a national team, a player's obligation to the national team is only for a set of matches or a tournament. It's essentially a freelance assignment. Once Euro 2000 is over, for all intentrs and purposes, Harry Kane is no longer an England player until the next set of internationals.

So if a player hasn't been called up for more than 12 months, I really don't see the problem with adding an end date to national team years. It can always be edited if there's a surprise call-up. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Dominic Solanke played once for England four years ago. Seems ridiculous to list him as a "current" English international, which we are doing by putting 2017– . If players don't play and aren't in any national squad for a couple of years, we should close the dates, and we can always reopen them if they do actually play again. Setting the limit at 5 years is way too long in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, 12 months or 24 months seem more reasonable. I think "recent callups" section on national team articles usually cut off at 12 months? Ytoyoda (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There's really no official retirement. Zlatan has "officially retired" I believe twice now from Sweden and then subsequently returned. Rooney retired and then subsequently came back for a farewell appearance. There's nothing wrong with closing it off and then if they come back just reopening it. Now I'm not saying close everyone's, but if a player hasn't played in a couple of years and is essentially 'inactive' what's the harm in having it closed and then re-opening it if and when become re-active. Seeing someone closed off at 2018 is actually what I'd prefer, because then I'd realize they haven't been called up in 3 years, we drop players from the recent call-ups in the national team article after 12 months, but infobox has to wait for 60 months, when in both cases, it's just a simple edit of a few bytes of text when they re-join. RedPatch (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's really no best way for the way we do it here. If Player A appears once in 2017, then never gets called up again (not even on the bench) but we have to leave it as 2017- Country 1(0), but Player B gets called up in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 but just never ends up appearing in a match, we don't write 2017- Country 0(0), we actually don't write anything, it wouldn't show Country at all. Technically, Player B would be more of an active national team player than A, but the way its being suggested would pose the opposite. Again, I'm not saying we should open up an international section for any player who gets called up and never plays, I just bring that up to say that there's no perfect way. Getting worked up about someone closing an international section for a player who hasn't appeared in 4 years is more trouble than its worth. RedPatch (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of articles at List of England international footballers with one cap we can safely edit. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with a cutoff of 12 months, similar to the recent call-ups section. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

At most two years for me. To imply that a player like Solanke has an ongoing international career because he played for 15 minutes four years ago looks very silly in my opinion. Realistically Solanke is not going to officially announce his international retirement after one cap (how pretentious would that be?), so if he never gets called up again would we leave his international career open-ended until such time as he retires from all football, which could be ten years away.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Premature transfers

It's that time of the year when transfer speculation/rumors make their way onto articles. Please keep an eye out for any high-profile target, especially of big clubs.

Today, it's Ibrahima Konaté and Boubakary Soumaré. The former reportedly passed a medical with Liverpool and the two clubs have reportedly agreed to a deal for the latter. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You got to love it. It even spreads down to backwaters like India where you have facebook of all places "confirm" a deal. Anyway, both pages added to the watchlist. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ping me here if any articles are particularly effected. I'll revert/block/protect as appropriate. Giant Snowman 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Bumping this discussion since Ibrahima Konaté has agreed to a transfer but it won't take effect until July, obviously. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Given these will continue to be added. Instead of constantly removing them why not add the next club with year#=2021- club#= in the code but with the hide arrows <- -> and a note saying remove on July 1. That could help stop some premature additions. Obviously won't stop all, but say it stops half that's still better than none. Also writing in the lede, that he is set to join Club X on July 1 as a result of a pre contract, etc RedPatch (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Premier League transfer window - 9 June 2021

In case you assumed (like me) it was 1 July as it usually is, the Premier League transfer window will open on 9 June per this. Unsure if this applies to Football League/non-league as well?

There is also a very useful FIFA source which lists all windows. Giant Snowman 14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been this way for decades, only exception was the 20/21 season cuz of all the covid stuff. non league have no windows in general, though. for example Connor Hall transferred from woking to chorley on christmas eve as they can sign players whenever they want in non league. july 1st is only relevant for those who's contracts expire. if man city buy ronaldo on june 18th, the transfer is automatic, not july 1st.Muur (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sudais Ali Baba, 2018, 2019 or 2020?

On 28 November 2018, Sudais Ali Baba, a then-youth player for Asteras Tripolis, officially signed a professional contract. He made his senior debut during the 2019–20 season, on 28 June 2020. What should be the cutoff for his youth career and the beginning of his senior career? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I would go with when the pro contract was signed.Muur (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

David Alaba

Hello. David Alaba has officially been announced as a Real Madrid player for next season (he signs on a free transfer). I think we can all agree that he is a Real Madrid player only once his Bayern Munich contract expires, correct? Therefore, why is he a Real Madrid player in the infobox & opening sentence on his article? Should he not still be a Bayern Munich player until 30 June 2021? It's a similar case for Mike Maignan, who in my opinion is still a Lille OSC player until the Serie A transfer window opens. What are your thoughts? Should we wait until contracts expire/transfer windows open, or when the official announcement is made we just make the switch? Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this above in another section. Technically he is a Bayern player until June 30, but this will get constantly get changed. I think what would be best is to write is "David Olatukunbo Alaba (born 24 June 1992) is an Austrian professional footballer who plays for Bayern Munich and the Austria national team. On July 1, he will officially join Real Madrid, having signed a pre-contract beginning July 1." Or something like that. That could stop people from changing it and provides the truest and best picture in my view. RedPatch (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is also the approach we took with Dominik Szoboszlai, who signed on 17 December 2020 and officially became a player on 1 January 2021. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I made this edit, and will do so wherever players already have a signed, announced agreement to join a new club. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Belenenses SAD / B SAD (Portuguese club)

There's recently been a bit of disruption concerning this club's proper name, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Could I ask interested and/or knowledgeable project members to comment on the article's title (and lede) at Talk:Belenenses SAD? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Players bought outside the window of the football market

Juve bought McKennie (bought outright from the loan) and sold Douglas Costa to Grêmio. Should these two transfers be put in the article about the current season or the one abuot the following season? Dr Salvus 15:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

When will they come into effect? Start of the next transfer window. Giant Snowman 16:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, Done permalink Dr Salvus 17:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

he doesnt officially join Juve till the transfer window opens on June 9th. so the article has been wrong and he is still officially on loan until june 9th. you cant buy players outside the transfer window (well you can, but it doesnt become official till the window opens, which in this case is june 9th)Muur (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Juventus' official press release stated, on 3 March, "da oggi è anche un giocatore della Juventus a titolo definitivo" ("from today he is also a Juventus player outright"). The PDF document also states that the deal was made official the same day (3 March). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

they can say what they want, the window closed on february 1st. juve cant over rule official FIFA transfer windows. if they claim to have officially signed him on that date then played him whilst a "permo" player they played an ineligible player and should be docks points. he is still on loan until the summer 2021 window opens on june 9th.Muur (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's OR for us to say that he became (will become) a Juventus player outright on a different date than 3 March, if that's what the club officially states. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

just include the sources and explain the window ended february 1st (with that itlian link higher up) and doesnt re-open till june 9th (with the fifa document). so like "they announced he had joined, but as the window closed on feb first he doesnt officially become a player till june 9th". if juve actually did this shit itd be like I said, illegally signing a player and playing him when theyre not supposed to and fifa would've disciplined them. also the deal was signed that day, but it doesnt become official till later. like how jordan rhodes signed a contarct with huddersifeld, but it doesnt come into effect till july 1st. juve sent the money to the other team and he signed the contract, but it does not become official till the window opens.Muur (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about Italy, but in the EFL you can convert a loan to permanent at any point during the loan spell. See guidance to rule 43.8, which says "A player registered on a Standard Loan in accordance with Regulation 55 at a Club may subsequently be permanently transferred to that Club at any time including during a Closed Period" (my bolding); and lower down, rule 54.4 and subclauses clarify that if a loan signing is made permanent, it doesn't count against any restrictions on loan players in a squad. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

oh interesting, this is relevant for Oladapo Afolayan then, as it means bolton did this. @GiantSnowman: anyway fair enough I think we can say its safe to say it works the same way in italy. TIL something new.Muur (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Muur: - fair, I had no idea, happy for the Afolayan article to be updated accordingly, if it hasn't already. Giant Snowman 13:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Michel Vorm

I have warned this IP multiple times, can one of the admins sort out Vorm's page, he is constantly being disruptive. Govvy (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Umm, it keeps combining the two Tottenham periods in info box into one... :/ I've reverted that enough. Need someone else to do it. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted and requested page protection. Although I think you probably should have explained why you were reverting instead of snowing him under with template warnings. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The page is now protected for 48 hours. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid season statistics

I was looking at 2020–21 Atlético Madrid season and really find it very hard to read the statistics table,

I was browsing through the older seasons, near impossible for me to read a lot of them, I can't see 2017–18 Atlético Madrid season.

In fact, it's bloody hard to view all the big stats tables all on all the season pages, kinda pisses me off. How can we get away with this WP:ACCESS violation!? Govvy (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The only statistics to be kept are appearances and goals, everything else should be removed. The table should look something like this. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. Much more pleasing on the eye. I have no idea what the hell is going on with the ATM ones. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've managed to decipher the icons at the top of each columns, but I dread to think how someone who doesn't know football would cope. – Pee Jay 11:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What's the column with the boot icon? I can't work that one out......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely use words not symbols for access reasons. It is hard enough for football fans to work out what they mean, so a casual reader would be very confused, and one using e.g. a screenreader may well be unable to comprehend symbols. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the 2020–21 season, if others could help with the previous seasons it would be appreciated. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The boot is assists in this case (if you hover with the mouse, there's an alt-text), and they shouldn't appear anyway as has been discussed here many times. --SuperJew (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Much easier to read, thank you. Govvy (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note, would someone be able to clean up List of VfL Bochum players - the text is so small it's unreadable and it violates MOS:TEXTSIZE. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. I'm unable to remove the unnecessary columns though (all "non-overall" stats), as my browser can't handle it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Order of club honours

Just an FYI that I've opened a discussion regarding the order of club honours on player biographies at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#Order of club honours. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Steve Harper#Career statistics

Apologies for bringing up career stats tables again, but I notice that this table seems to work differently to most others in that it shows the loans he went out on during his lengthy Newcastle career in the correct place chronologically, rather than having many rows for Newcastle and then all the loans grouped below that. I personally massively prefer this format to the one used at, say, David Beckham#Career statistics, where his brief loan spell at Preston in 1994-95 comes between 2002-03 and 2003-04, but wondered if it ought to be reworked to be consistent with the majority.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should, because otherwise it causes confusion with the 'total' amounts. The formatting of the table as a whole is awful. Giant Snowman 19:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In that notion, what about Zach Clough? he left bolton, played for Forest for half a season, then returned to bolton on loan for half a season. what would be the correct format there, add the loan to the stats above forest since its bolton or not?Muur (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine as it is to me. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep the loans below the parent club stats. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Bingo. This is how it's done in the MOS because it avoids confusion. Giant Snowman 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Matty, GS, it looks the way it does now because I brought it in line with the MOS. Looked a mess before. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

New article needed? Or when to re-name?

As some of you will know, the 3rd tier in Spain since the 1970s was the Segunda División B, but this summer a new Primera División RFEF has been created above it (and a new Wikipedia article to go with it). The Tercera División (which was the original 3rd tier as its name suggests) will now become the Tercera División RFEF (5th tier overall) which actually makes more sense with the name. I think a simple re-naming will be fine for its article due to its low profile and the fact that its structure stays the same. But for the 4th tier, which will be Segunda División RFEF, I'm not so sure. It will have the same basic structure as Segunda B with 5 regionalised groups, but if you look at the team line-up for next season, only 36 out of the 90 participants will be from the 2020–21 Segunda División B (which finished its fixtures yesterday, including playoffs). I've created new categories for the 'RFEF-suffixed' season articles which I think is appropriate for clarity going forward, but is a new Segunda División RFEF overview article needed too? The same body (RFEF is organising the new competitions as it did with the old, so it's not really a SFL/SPL/SPFL administrative split situation. I know it's not particularly relevant to us on the English site, but Spanish Wiki have created a new article. If it's considered that just a re-name for Segunda B will be sufficient, when should this be? 1 July? Crowsus (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, these changes will have to be made: Segunda División B → Segunda División RFEF, and Tercera División → Tercera División RFEF. I think the old seasons formally end on June 1st, so that would be a good time to make the switches in my opinion. I also wouldn't be opposed to making whole new pages for Segunda División RFEF and Tercera División RFEF, as it's all a bit confusing and it kind of kills the value of their respective categories. Maybe a clean start would make things smoother going forward.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a new article(s)? Giant Snowman 09:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I kinda forgot about the player cats, there are existing ones for Category:Segunda División B players and Category:Tercera División players – I think the Tercera one has been applied to players of the 3rd tier from 1930 to 1977 AND for those in the 4th tier from 1977 to 2021. Should this continue to be applied the same way (either with or without a RFEF rename) going forward? and should the Segunda B cat for the 3rd tier players be renamed to Segunda RFEF for 4th tier, or a new one created there too? Surely there are precedents for this situation? I am aware of Category:NIFL Premiership players which seems to apply to all players in the [Northern] Irish top division going back to the 1890s – at least that's how I have been applying it to articles. So that is one where the most modern name is being used although it doesn't match the name that players competed under back in the day. But no sure how equitable that is to the situation in Spain here. Crowsus (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the old CATs might need to be date ranged. Govvy (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating new articles means you would have new cats. If somebody played in the old league, they get the old cat (and vice versa). If they played in both, then both. Giant Snowman 14:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, how about the previous issue with the Tercera División? Not sure if the name changed at all but certainly in 1977 its function changed from being the third tier (4 groups I think, although it had been more than that in the past) to being the fourth tier with 18 groups for the autonomous communities, quite a difference. Should we create a player cat for the 1930-1977 Tercera with a date range? I think that will pre-empt less changes than changing the 1977-2021 version? Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There should be one article with one matching category. If the league constitution changed (i.e. not just a simply name change, like The Football League rebranding as English Football League) then there should be a new article and a new category. Which of those applies in 1977? Giant Snowman 19:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about the constitution; the league body (RFEF) didn't change, and still hasn't changed now for the leagues in question. The major administrative move seems to have been in 1984 when the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional was created to govern the two two tiers separately and that remains the case. But there was no big split as far as I can tell and no names were re-branded at that time as occurred in England 8 years later. My thinking is that the Tercera players in the top teams of 1976 would have had a very different character to those in the village teams at the bottom of the groups in 1980, so having them in the same category seems unhelpful. But, I'm fully aware that the Football League has had the same cat for everyone playing one game for [insert modern minnow without causing offence] in 2020 to the Victorian superstars of the 1890s to 66 World Cup winners to both sides in Wrexham v Arsenal, and everyone in between. So if the era and prestige of the league isn't that important, maybe more cats aren't needed in Spain? Crowsus (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's essentially the same division, then keep one category and just rename it (like the Football League stuff) - no need for a new article and no need for a new category. Giant Snowman 14:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

What's obvious is that we need a new article for the new third division, the Primera RFEF. The Spanish language wiki has created new articles for all three new divisions and I'd probably support doing so here as this doesn't appear to be a Fußball-Regionalliga situation (where the entire league drops down tiers.) But there's also no hurry - will depend on how secondary sources cover the leagues. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There's already an article for the new Primera División RFEF RedPatch (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And therefore we need new categories to compliment the new article. Giant Snowman 19:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Primera rfef is the new division. The question was about the other two divisions. This one was never in doubt. RedPatch (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

released scholars in transfer tables

Should scholars who have been released be included in transfer tables for club season pages (e.g. 2021–22 Leeds United F.C. season), or should they be omitted? It appears that some articles include them and some do not. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say include only senior-contracted players. Scholars/academy players are very hard to follow and source - it would open a can of worms IMO. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming scholars are academy players. That term isn't used in football where I'm from, so if that's not what it means then ignore this. But if it applies to a player who is solely in the academy/youth teams, then they should absolutely NOT be in an article about the senior team. At what point does it stop? A 7 year old leaves the U7 team, do they get included? As SuperJew mentioned, a whole can of worms. I don't know how the youth system works in England, but where I'm from, youth players can and up and leave if they want basically whenever and join whatever new team for the next season. RedPatch (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPatch: in English football a scholar is specifically a player who signs a scholarship contract with the club (typically two years long) after they leave the u16s, and is the step in between the academy and signing a pro contract with the club, though the players do recieve a wage (albeit a small one) and can play for the first-team. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Microwave Anarchist: Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware of that kind of structure. Demonstrates how unique our sport is that it's different all around the world. I'd still lean to no, if they had not made a first team appearance. Although if they were to be included, I'd separate the seniors from the scholars rather than mixing. RedPatch (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say no unless they have had some first-team involvement, like being named on the bench.--Echetus Xe 13:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with noting the players released by the club in the season page, it's correct information and 99% of the time can be sourced. Govvy (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If the club mentions them in their 'retained/released' list new piece, then include then as well. Giant Snowman 18:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

yeah if the club mentions those players there's no reason not to. it also makes things more interesting if you look a few years later and spot a youth player that was released and now he has a page. a lot of the time theyre released and either just become non league stalwarts, but then there's those where at the time the player means nothing... but you look five years later and suddenly he's playing in say, the top division of a country and has won many trophies and now he was a super relevant player. when bolton released marcos alonso (who tbf, was relevant as he played in the PL for us) do you think bolton fans expected him to win literally every trophy possible in the history of english football? slightly different example, but it's similar.Muur (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Costa's loans and 2021–22 Juventus F.C. season

In October 2020, Bayern Munich bought Douglas Costa on loan until 30 June 2021. On 21 May, Grêmio and Juventus announced his transfer to the Brazilian side on loan, before the end of the loan to Bayern Munich.

Should we consider the Costa's transfer effectuated on 1 July (date of end of his loan to Bayern) or on 21 May (day of the announcement) in the 2021–22 Juventus F.C. season Page? Dr Salvus 07:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

See the section above #David Alaba and follow the solution advised there. Gricehead (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixture list in club season

What's the consensus on formatting fixture lists in club season articles? At Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons, there is a wikitable with colour coding. I ask because FastCube has changed the wikitable at 1996–97 Perth Glory SC season to a fully collapsed series of {{football box collapsible}} templates, which seems to breach MOS:COLLAPSE. Hack (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is general consensus to use the wikitable rather than collapsible templates in club season articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there's been a few discussions on this but per WP:WHENTABLE and MOS:LIST we should be using a table over the series of collapsed templates. Recent discussions include this and this. There are also other relevant discussions about national team articles rather than club seasons here, here and here. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

2020–21 Eredivisie

On the Monthly awards section, is it me, or is that really annoying to look at? With the over-use of flag icons it kinda screws with my eyes!! What do other peeps think of that section? Govvy (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, remove flags from that section for sure. Giant Snowman 09:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

K, Looks like PeeJay already sorted it out while I was at work, cheers. Govvy (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like User:Sb008 doesn't want to accept this. Maybe they should come in here and explain why it's necessary to include an abundance of flags. – Pee Jay 23:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Not much to explain, I've no problem with the flags being removed from the Monthly awards section. As a matter of fact, I don't mind if the complete section is removed. In my opinion the whole section is nonsense and I don't think any player will ever be remembered for winning a monthly award. It's a meaningless award and only an advertising tool for companies, and sadly some people on Wiki think we should support these advertising campaigns. Maybe you should be a bit more careful before you make false accusations. But it seems you like to present matters in a Trumpian way. --Sb008 (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sb008: My mistake, I thought you were complaining about the flags being removed from the table. Apologies. Nevertheless, I don't understand why you're reverting my changes to the hat-tricks table. A hat-trick is three goals, yes, but we don't suddenly say a player hasn't scored a hat-trick if they go on to score a fourth or fifth goal. There's no need to throw around accusations of Trumpiness btw. Bit of a personal attack there, chief. – Pee Jay 11:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

A hat-trick is any person who scores three goals in a game. If you score 4 or 5 goals in a game, then by definition you have also scored three goals, and so have scored a hat-trick- this is why for example the featured list List of Premier League hat-tricks includes people with 4 or 5 goals. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: A person who scored more than 3 goals, indeed did score a hat-trick as well. But this player did more than just scoring a hat-trick. Your featured list List of Premier League hat-tricks starts with a table indicating keys like ⁴ and ⁵, clearly to distinguish between people who scored only a hat-trick and those who scored 4 or even 5 goals. According to your line of reasoning we can limit a top-scorer list to those who scored 3 goals as well. After all those who scored 10 or even 20 goalls, scored 3 goals as well. It's very common to indicate more than 3 as 3+. To indicate 3 or more than 3 as 3(+). Then why is it wrong to indicate hat-tricks or more goals than a hat-trick as hat-trick(+)?

@PeeJay: A bit of a personal attack? Look in the mirror, making a false accusation is not a bit of, but a big personal attack. They even came up with a word for it, slander. If you make up your own facts and attribute them to someone else, I call it what it is, Trumpian behavior. You don't like it, behave different. If I would object to the removal of the flags, I would have reverted your edit on the section where you did remove the flags. You don't understand why I'm reverting? Very simple, I don't understand why you start changing things which have been as they're for 4 seasons, without providing any argument, without seeking any dialogue or consensus. WP:AINT You seem to think you decide how things are supposed to be and can ignore what has been the consensus for 4 years. You violate about every rule relating to cooperat(e)/(ing). --Sb008 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL, that was a good way of accepting an apology. So how about you start by justifying why you need to use the {{goal}} template? Per MOS:ICON, icons should not be used for decoration. My change was justified. Can you also explain why the date format needed to be the way it was? The table sorts just fine if you type the date out, which takes up less space than if you use that inexplicable template. – Pee Jay 13:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You understood it correct, I didn't accept your apology. An apology followed by an accusation of a personal attack and ignoring your own behavior is not an apology. An apology doesn't contain any but's, btw's or similar.

You claim that per MOS:ICON icons should not be used as decoration. I would see icons are by definition decoration. It becomes "problematic" when their only purpose is decoration. But since we created a template with an icon to indicate a goal, the template is apparently not considered to be only decoration. If you disagree, I guess we can expect your proposal to remove {{goal}} soon. Why is it any different to use {{goal}} in {{Football box}} or {{Football box collapsible}}? You going to delete all icons there as well per MOS:ICON?

The MediaWiki Time parser function is very well documented. Is there are rule which says we've a lot of parser functions, but we only have them for fun/decoration, you're not allowed to use them cause PeeJay considers them inexplicable. Let's get rid of modules as well, cause just like "#time", "#invoke" with all it's parameters is even more inexplicable. And while we at it, let's get rid of transclusion and templates as well, all those parser functions, it's a disgrace. Maybe you prefer {{dts}} to be used, but then it's just as complex as #time.

It's not up to me to justify anything. I don't challenge the consensus which has been there for 4 seasons. You challenge the consensus, so it's up to you to justify your change. But if you want a justification. If {{goal}} would be in conflict with MOS:ICON, the template wouldn't be there and certainly would not be used elsewhere. If parser functions would not be allowed, Wiki would collaps. You need any more justification? So far, you failed to provide a single reason why the table shouldn't be as it is, you only express your personal preference, which appears to be very selective. On top you ognore WP:AINT and violate WP:EW. --Sb008 (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the main reason why {{goal}} can be used in match summary templates is because there isn't a column header that literally says "Goals". You're being absolutely absurd with your arguments. No one is saying templates shouldn't be used where necessary, but they're just not necessary here. – Pee Jay 12:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You're not the one who decides what is necessary or not. A 4 year consensus has deemed the hat-trick table, and therefore {{tl}goal}}, to be appropriate. And an absurd argument is always better than no argument. That is, kindergarten arguments I consider as no arguments. Todler A: You're ugly/stupid/fat/smell bad/clumsy/whatever. Todler B: No, I'm not. Todler A: Yes, you're. Todler B: No, I'm not. --Sb008 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, explain to me why the template is necessary. Just because something has been done a certain way for four years doesn't mean it's been done the right way, and Wikipedia guidelines are pretty clear on this; icons should not be used for decoration, which is exactly what they're being used for here. – Pee Jay 19:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, just because something is done for 4 years, it doesn't mean it's right. However, if something is done for 4 years, it's an existing consensus which cannot be overruled just like that. Just because you say it's wrong. even less means it's wrong. Who do you think you're? The almighty Wikipedia god who decides what's wrong or right? Did you ever read the Wikipedia rules on consensus, cooperation, and a few more? Oh wait, you don't only decide what's right and wrong, you also decide who has to follow which rules. No wonder the community didn't see you fit to be an administrator up to three times. As soon as you tell me why in this table the template is only decoration and elsewhere not, I'll tell you why I disagree. You demand a change, so you provide the proof. --Sb008 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. – Elisson • T • C • 21:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I already told you why it's not decoration in the {{footballbox}} template; that template doesn't have a header to indicate that the listed names are goalscorers, so the icon serves as a visual cue for that. In your precious table, the column is literally called "Goals", so there's no need to use the icon. And yes, it is up to me to decide what's right and wrong based on Wikipedia policy, but it's also up to you and everyone else on here. We don't have policies so people can ignore them, and even a longstanding consensus can't override policy. – Pee Jay 15:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

So whether something is decorative, is decided on by the header. In that case, I assume all these penalty icons are decorative, since they clearly listed below the header "penalties". --Sb008 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop being silly. Since those icons are the only thing conveying whether or not the penalty kicks were successful (which is relevant information), it is obviously not purely decorative. – Elisson • T • C • 21:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The UEFA doesn't use an icon to indicate who scored. I don't think there'll be many people, when warching the UEFA page, who don't understand Moreno & Cavani were the goalscorers. So purely decorarive icons. And as far as the penalties are concerned, I can think of other ways besides an icon to indicate success or not. Success or not is relevant, but that doesn't make the icon necessary. --Sb008 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

You are free to suggest changes to the footballbox template. But as it currently is, neither the goal or penalty icons are purely decorative. So stop your strawman. – Elisson • T • C • 09:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't like the statistics section on the page, I don't see the point of team of the month. That should be stripped out in my opinion. I like the way we do tables at 2020–21 Premier League. Can you at least follow that MoS? Govvy (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: I don't see the point of having an awards section at all. The whole section should be removed. Does anyone, besides the companies who committed their name to these awards, actually care about these rewards? Is anyone remembered for winning a monthly award? Can you mention a single player who won a monthly award 3 seasons ago? Well you probably can, e.g. the odds that Messi won a monthly award 3 season s ago will be close to 100%. However, then you don't "know" him winning one but you take a calculated guess. The award section, in my book, doesn't qualify as WP:N(E), based on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE but as WP:PROMOTION. Notability aside, the table at the Premier League I don't see as a good example. A separate column for references? Why aren't the references listed after the name of the month in the first column? After all, it are references for the awards for that specific month.

@Johan Elisson: I've no intention of changing the usage of the footballbox. But you put it correct, if I would want to make changes, I can make suggestions to do so. After all, we're dealing with an existing consensus and that would be the proper procedure. Likewise the hat-trick)+) section on the Eredivisie page is an existing consensus for the past 4 seasons. Likewise, PeeJay can make suggestions. But he isn't making suggestions, he's forcing his opinion as the new non consensus standard. Next his arguments. His first and only argument is the presence of the header. If that would be the deciding argument, we wouldn't need the penalty icons. Apparantly the header isn't the only argument. The UEFA match report shows that goalscorers without an icon is just as clear. So why do the goalscorers need an icon? I agree with you that any of those icons aren't just purely decorative. Where we disagree is why the icons in the hat-tricks table are supposed to be only decorative. All the reasons given so far can equally be applied on the footballbox. So, what distinguished the hat-trick table from the footballbox (which is just a table too). Give me an argument which applies for one and not for the other. Or are you promoting double standards? --Sb008 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing the awards section would be ridiculous. The acknowledgement of the best player in each month of the season is simply part of football, regardless of whether the award is sponsored. The 2020–21 Eredivisie article doesn't even mention the sponsors, so I don't know why you're griping about it. Anyway, I agree with you that the {{goal}} template isn't necessary in the {{footballbox}} either, but when I argued for its deprecation a year or more ago, people disagreed as the icon is a standard way of indicating goals in many sources; however, the common factor in most of those is that they don't have a header to indicate what the icon is supposed to represent, whereas your hat-tricks table does. The icons are purely decorative in this instance. – Pee Jay 18:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that "consensus" for a single article (or the four articles in this case) does not supersede generic Wikipedia guidelines. I.e. some editors can not just chose to ignore MOS:ICON on the specific Eredivisie pages just because they have consensus in their group. On the other hand, changing the footballbox would require consensus unless it obviously breaks a Wikipedia guideline (which as far as I know, it doesn't). So no. I am not promoting double standards. – Elisson • T • C • 19:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: If those awards are simply part of football, they would have been there for decades. In some leagues they only exist for a few years and there're even leagues where they don't exist yet. They like merchandizse, a commercial side effect of football. Without these awards, the game doesn'r change in any wau and therefore they not part of the game. But frankly, I don't care if we have those sections, I'll not update them tho. I only responded to Govvy, he doesn't see the point of team of the month, I don't see the point of player, manager, talent or whatever of the month. I don't claim that the {{goal}} template is not necessary in {{footballbox}}. I do claim however that the functionality of the {{goal}} template is alike in the hat-trick(+) table and the {{footballbox}}. The presence or absence of the "goals" header doesn't affect the meaning with or without the icon. Again I refer to the UEFA page. No one will wonder what is meant with "Gerard Moreno 29'" and "Cavani 55'". So what I do claim is, that whatever applies for the {tl|goal}} template in the hat-trick(+) table, equally applies for the template in {{footballbox}}. As you state yourself "the icon is a standard way of indicating goals". Since a hat-trick consists of goals, 3 goals to be precise for which the icon is the standard way to indicate them, the standard way to indicate hat-tricks(+) is by using the icon. Unless of course a hat-trick doesn't consist of goals.

@Johan Elisson: Your statement contains an assumption. You say that 4 articles cannot supersede generic Wikipedia guidelines. However do these 4 articles supersede generic Wikipedia guidelines? You can easily shout that MOS:ICON is violated on the Eredivisie pages, but not on any other pages. Shouting something without argumentation isn't very convincing. I could just as easy shout "Johan Ellison is uglier than his neighbour". It would be an equally meaningless statement as your statement. In the section above, I motivated why whatever you sau about {{goal}} in the hat-trick(+) section also applies for {{footballbox}}. Why, according to you, is the hat-trick(+) section not in accordance with MOS:ICON, where {{goal}} is. And while you at, why're all the country flags for players in the top scorers/assists section, on national league pages, in accordance with MOS:ICON? On World Cup pages I can understand the flags since the players represent their country. But on e.g. the 2020–21 Premier League page, why do we need to know that Mohamed Salah is from Egypt? Does he represent Egypt in any way in the Premoer League? I would say, he represents himself first of all, and secondly Liverpool. Well maybe it's nice to know he's from Egypt, but then it's also noce to know his age, and probably a lot of women would like to know if he's married and people who also read a spicific kind of tabloids might be interested in the color od his underwear. Should we list all that info, preferably using icons, in the top scorer/assists tables too? A players' nationality is totally irrelevant for a national league, so a violation MOS:ICON. Furthermore, I don't see any mentioning like "this template is onty be used within the {{footballbox}} template and considered decoration only in all other cases" on the {{goal}} page. Nor do I see any mentioning of "icins within {{footballbox}} are by definition in accordance" on the MOS:ICON. It seems in your opinion there's a lot that supersedes general guielines. You know what's even funnier, when I mentioned consensus, I wasn't talking about the icons, but about the behavior of a certain user. And let me repeat it once more for you, I've no intention to change the consensus about {{footballbox}}. Last but not least, there's no hierarchy in consensus. Consensus is not related to the number of pages, it can be about a single page, even about a single line. In all those cases, the general rules for changuing or creating a new consensus apply in the same way. And not when it suits you a bit more or a bit less. --Sb008 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Your persistent whataboutism does nothing to help your argument. You're basically saying that because things are done a certain way elsewhere on Wikipedia (potentially in violation of policies), you're totally justified in violating those same policies in your pet articles. That is, of course, nonsense. Your argument about flagicons is also spurious, since we're not arguing simply that it's "nice" to know what nationality a player is; if you look at the Premier League's own stats pages (see here), you'll see that players' nationalities are listed alongside their name, their club and the relevant stat. Now, just in case it wasn't clear enough the first time I asked, would you please provide a concrete reason in favour of including the goal template and the time parser function. Honestly, I'm not even convinced you know what the time parser function does, much less your reason for including it in that article. The table isn't sortable, so it doesn't provide any functionality in terms of sortability; why not just write the dates out properly? And finally, for the last time, you don't need to add the plus sign; players who have scored four or more goals have, by definition, also scored hat-tricks, so you don't need to specify that a table of hat-tricks also includes players who scored more than three goals in a game. I would have thought that was pretty obvious to even the most intellectually challenged of people, but apparently not. – Pee Jay 06:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I really don't have anything additional to add to what PeeJay has already said. – Elisson • T • C • 18:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)