Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 153

Gabriele Boloca
Team information
Current team	Juventus U23
Number	30
Youth career
0000–2021	Juventus
2019–2020	→ Bologna (loan)
2020–2021	→ Monza (loan)
Senior career*
Years	Team
2021–	Juventus U23
	*Club domestic league appearances and goals

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 150

Archive 151

→

Should we reverse the bracket?

In 2022 AFC Cup qualifying play-offs, for Athletic 220 v Lee Man match, the original is Lee Man v Athletic 220. However, for some reasons, the host was reversed. So I think we should write

	Play-off round



	Athletic 220

	Lee Man

. However, Anbans 585 contested and said No the order of the leg has not been reversed. This is evident from the order in the official match sources. Instead we should add a citation on why the match is not being held on the home team's ground. So far I have not been able to find any citation which either states change in order of leg, or change in venue.. So what do you think?

A:

	Play-off round



	Athletic 220

	Lee Man

B:

	Play-off round



	Lee Man

	Athletic 220

Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggest A per above. We should match to actual match Hhkohh (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
B Per match report with a note as suggested. Kante4 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hhkohh: Have added a note which explains why the match is being played at the away team's venue. Hadn't added it earlier, as I was not able to find a citation. Have found it now.--Anbans 585 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we did not find any source for now the reason why the match play at the away team's venue. So it confused me a lot sometimes. Hhkohh (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding source about venue change Hhkohh (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ronaldo's dead son

Ronaldo has five sons. I've written this sentence without including the son unfortunatley dead as Ronaldo currently has 5 sons. Some IPs think I'm wrong. Should the dead boy be included in the count? Dr Salvus 21:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like there might/should be a guideline for these cases. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Assists in the prose

Each site has its way of attributing a player an assist to a teammate which could be different from any other. For example a site might attribute a player an assist while other don't do so all. For example, if I'm not mistaken, Vlahovic's goal against Cagliari about one week ago had no assist for some sites while for other sites, he was assisted by Dybala. Should the number of assists be shown in the prose? Dr Salvus 11:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No, for the reasons you state above. Giant Snowman 11:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless they were the top assist makers of the season (for example), according the official FA. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok but the FA is not the Bible. Dr Salvus 22:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be, it's the FA. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If someone makes a notable assist and no site says it's not his, can this be put onto the article? Dr Salvus 12:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If the assist is so noteworthy that multiple websites are including it in their headlines, then why not. But if it's just mentioned in passing as an ordinary assist, it doesn't make sense to include it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Japanese footballer(s)

I was trying to de-orphan an article ran into a problem with two players, Seiya Katakura and Seiya Kitakura. Since the names are so close, I looked into it further: the prose of both stubs indicates an identical birthdate and club, so I suspect they are the same player. The source for the first (Soccerway) indicates that would be the correct name for the player (the second is also cited with a single source, but in Japanese, which I can't read). Should the articles be merged, and if so, with what name? Perfect4th (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Perfect4th: Both articles use the same kanji for the name, which Google Translate romanizes as Katakura Seiya. Unless there is a reliable source romanizing his family name as "Kitakura", I would start a merge discussion at Talk:Seiya Kitakura to merge into Seiya Katakura. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I have started a discussion at Talk:Seiya Kitakura#Merger proposal. Perfect4th (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

2021-22 EFL League One

As of 19th April 2022 at 3PM BST, the league table on the article "2021-22 EFL League One" states that Rotherham United and Milton Keynes Dons have secured at least a play-off spot but could still secure automatic promotion. As far as I'm aware, neither club have secured either a play-off spot nor automatic promotion. Can someone tell me how they've secured at least a play-off spot or correct the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanofpolitics (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It was added here by Skyblueshaun. To me, it looks like Plymouth, Wycombe, Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday can all gain enough points to overtake Rotherham or MK Dons (based on games left), but maybe some of these teams are playing each other? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

hasithappened says Rotherham and MK can both still finish 7th, each time on goal difference. Spike 'em (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wycombe have still to play Sheffield Wednesday in the only match up between the four clubs mentioned, but if Wycombe were to win that then Sheffield Wednesday still have enough games to catch MK Dons or us (Rotherham). No-one except Wigan has secured a play-off spot yet. Maybe by 10pm BST tonight? Gricehead (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Colour for 4th place

So I'm having a bit of a disagreement with YangerAAS and Taeguk who want the fourth place in tables to be coloured (Some have used light blue and some have used yellow/lemon as well). As per these edits here, here and here. My feeling is that fourth place isn't a medal (Honour) and shouldn't be coloured, only 1st, 2nd and 3rd. I couldn't see any prior discussion on this but thought there must have been some consensus on it before?— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Competitive records tables should match the template set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams#Competitive record. A lot of pages haven't been updated yet as it wasn't really that long ago that changing it was agreed. It has the yellowy colour as a background for fourth (although doesn't actually give an example of how to use it). Personally, I don't care if fourth place has a colour so I'd have no objection if there was a consensus to remove it and only use background colours for the top three. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well I stand corrected on the 4th place, don't know why Lemon was chosen for it either. Still think a discussion on having a 4th colour is needed. I get it if you are taking about the World Cup but it's used for every competition and 4th in a 4 team competition it seems silly (side note, not a fan of 2nd either in a two team competition too). You start getting thing like New Caledonia in the Pacific Games where basically every field is then coloured. I would prefer 1st, 2nd and 3rd only. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. 4th place doesn't need colour-coding on aa results table. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not invented this rule. Since I started looking at national team articles on Wikipedia I have seen both bold and color for Fourth place. Taeguk (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Kia ora Taeguk, I wasn't having a go at you, I was bring it here for clarification and it turns out I was wrong regarding 4th being coloured, it's currently supposed to be that yellow/lemon colour. (I wouldn't mind that changing still though). The fields aren't suppose to be bold though. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 08:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think 4th place need coloring Hhkohh (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do we have colours for this anyway? Does this all doesn't meet WP:COLOUR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it meets COLOUR fine "Colors are most commonly found in Wikipedia articles within templates and tables" though don't know, maybe could be more accessibility friendly. I just think a discussion is needed on whether a colour for 4th place is required. I don't think it is as it usually not seen as a medal position.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 20:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

UltimateNZSoccer as a source

The discussion has moved to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website as a source for BLP's so I'm closing it. Feel free to reopen if neccessary. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

So a deletion discussion about an All White with 16 caps and 5 goals not being notable, turned into a discussion on whether UltimateNZSoccer is a reliable source. It is on WP:WPFLINKS and was fine until BilledMammal said it was a self-published source and can't be used for BLP articles. The thing is, the website is run by Jeremy Ruane who is a NZ Football historian, it is actually more accurate that even using NZ Football website previously for information and Ruane himself is a journalist. He has won awards for his work, linked by Te Ara - The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand which is run by New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Lastly he is quite often quoted or referenced in Newspapers Jeremy Ruane, a New Zealand women's football journalist and Ultimate NZ Soccer website editor and renowned Kiwi football historian Jeremy Ruane. I know I'm biased on this but I'm trying to save a good source that is currently used not only in a lot of Club/Season articles but alot of New Zealand Football BLPs as well.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Add also that he is recognised by New Zealand Football as a football historian here as well and is part of the RSSSF stats website and they quite often link people back to Ultimate NZ Soccer as well [1], [2], [3], [4].— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it is reliable, it is whether it is self published - if it is self published, then per [[WP:BLPSPS] ]we cannot use it on BLP's, even if the author is a subject matter expert. However, I believe the correct place to discuss this is WP:RSN, and I will open a discussion there after this discussion has had time to determine the scope of that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's have a discussion here first; if we conclude that it shouldn't be used, there's no need for wider discussion. As for the issue, the whole reason the BLP rule about self-published sources has nothing to do with trivial statistics, and I'll need to see some examples of potential damage before I move from an "Ignore All Rules" stance. Can you give an example User:BilledMammal of how there might be any potential damage, that no longer exists when the player dies; I'm struggling to think of even the most unlikely scenario. Though if the consensus is to not use this source for BLP articles, then I'd suggest placing the reference in hidden text that can be removed once the player is dead. Nfitz (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think hypotheticals will be useful here; even assuming that you are correct that there are no examples of potential damage from the use of this source I don't believe IAR can apply here. If there was a consensus to allow the use of sources where editors cannot identify any examples of potential damage then WP:BLPSPS would say that, rather than stating that we should never use such sources.

I also disagree with having the discussion here first; we need input from editors more experienced with BLP rules. BilledMammal (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well you should have taken it there. You've already changed what it can be used for on Football links then tried to have the discussion about the source on a players page, if you were worried about BLP violations you would have done that first. I brought it here as was looking for some football knowledge first since it was on the links page.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 06:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think a hypothetical User:BilledMammal would be very useful. There must be some aspect here that's of concern to you; given the sensitivity of BLPs I can be convinced if there's something I haven't thought of. Please lay out a worst-case example. Also please hold off on a discussion elsewhere - it would help if we all arrive there on the same page, from a football perspective. Nfitz (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal shouting that sources aren't reliable as a way to try and force deletion of sports articles- seen this underhand tactic before. This user will try and do whatever to delete sports articles. I also disagree with having the discussion here first; we need input from editors more experienced with BLP rules. It's a discussion about football/soccer, so worth having here, the place with the most knowledgeable editors about football. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it is reliable, it is whether it is self published. To help me understand the scope of the discussion when I take this to RSN, do you disagree with the claim that the source is self-published, or do you disagree with the claim that self-published sources are not allowed to be used on BLP's? BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To whom are you asking this? You quoted only yourself. Nfitz (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's in response to this BilledMammal shouting that sources aren't reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPS states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. whiçh UltimateNZSoccer clearly meets. Aside from that, e site is not generally used for the basis of articles, it is generally used as additional verification of supporting information. For example, it is not used as the basis of an article on a NZ International Footbalker, other sources are used for that, but it does back up the claim that said international footballer has indeed played x number of internationals, in the same way that Soccerway and other such sites do, and has consistently been shown to be reliable. The fact that the site has less contributors does not make it unreliable. It is certainly more reliable than a website like Stuff, which claims to be a newspaper but in reality employs amateur journalism students to write half their articles and is little better that a gossip and opinion rag. ClubOranje^T 10:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@ClubOranje: The issue isn't the general reliability of the site - I don't know enough about it or its author to comment on that. The issue is its use in BLP's, per WP:BLPSPS, which states Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Forget the guidelines a minute BilledMammal, what is your actual problem with using this source on an article about a footballer? Do you think it is not reliable? Or is this just playing the system to remove sources about footballers and to work to delete articles about footballers? --SuperJew (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the use of self-published sources on our most sensitive articles; as I said before The issue isn't whether it is reliable, it is whether it is self published. However, based on comments like yours and Joseph2302's, I don't believe further discussion here will be productive; I've opened the discussion on RSN, and will now step back from this topic and let uninvolved editors discuss. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Federico Piovaccari and 2005 Mediterranean Games

Hi. I updated Federico Piovaccari and the infobox said than he played 8 (5 goals) matches for Italy U-23, no source, even FIGC, Soccerway (WikiProject Football/Archive 153 at Soccerway) or Worldfootball (WikiProject Football/Archive 153 at WorldFootball.net) i can't find any source. The Italian Wiki only has and interview with no more details ([5]). So, Piovaccari played the 2005 Mediterranean Games with Italy U-23, a non-official tournament. My question is, it's ok to add Italy U-23 section in the infobox?. Greetings.Pincheira22 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Pincheira22 No Dr Salvus 21:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The Italian Federation's website is usually comprehensive with national team statistics (even of youth teams), and even they don't have him. I would just remove the U23 info from Piovaccari's article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

He was part of the squad, but i can't find any info if he played any games. (figc.it). --Fredde (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

UEFA Youth League Final

If Juve Primavera reach the final of the Youth League, I'd like to create an article about the match. I believe the Italian websites will give a big coverage if this happens. Could the article be notable? Dr Salvus 09:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this year's Youth League final would be any more notable than any previous years. – Pee Jay 15:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, we have articles on all the finals of this competition from 2016 and 2020. Not convinced they are notable enough though. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Same, don't think they are notable to have an own article. Kante4 (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree - maybe send one to AFD to gauge wider consensus? Giant Snowman 09:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

if the match isnt notable without juve primavera in it, then the competition just isn't notable in the first place. the final would have pages for every final if it was notable.Muur (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The specific finals may not be, but the UEFA Youth League itself is clearly notable, regardless of the teams that participate in it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

KNVB Cup

Does anyone know of a resource for KNVB Cup appearances and goals, for around 1989 to 2002? I've made a career stats table for Erik ten Hag, and all that's missing is KNVB Cup data. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ben Collins

Ben Collins (soccer, born 2000) was created on 7 December 2021 by Simione001 and today Benjamin Collins (Australian soccer) was created by FastCube. Wasn't sure how to request it, so bringing up here - can we do a histmerge between them and what name should the article be under? Ben Collins seems to me the more common name (some sources: WUFC, FTBL, Star Weekly, Inner Sanctum contract, Inner Sanctum NPL season, WUFC again, WUFC captaincy, WUFC NPL squad) and on the other hand can't find any news about Benjamin Collins. --SuperJew (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The correct name should be Ben Collins (soccer, born 2000). I'm not the right person to talk to about this. I suggest bringing it up on the talk page of the article Benjamin Collins (Australian soccer). Also the Northcote Stats provided by FastCube are incorrect as 2018 is missing. Perhaps Matilda Maniac can help. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever title is chose, neither of these articles has any real prose. In light of the recent RfC, I feel neither of these articles is up to the standard that should be met for creating an article. SuperJew provided some sources that could be used to improve it and add prose, but the current forms are extremely lacking. I mentioned it earlier in another thread, I feel there needs to be a minimum standard for article creation. A one-two sentence stub saying he plays for club XYZ (even with a stats table) isn't it IMO. (I'm not saying he doesn't merit an article, but neither of these is an 'article') RedPatch (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realised "Ben Collins (soccer, born 2000)" existed at the time of making "Benjamin Collins (Australian soccer)". It was from a link not existing for "Benjamin Collins" in List of Western United FC players. I saw his name as Benjamin Collins looking at Western United's squad site and Soccerway, and thought the name is Benjamin. Of course other sources can relate to him as Ben Collins, but looking at primary sources it shows as Benjamin Collins. Also, with the Northcote 2018 stats, it seems as though the league stats for 2018 season doesn't show up in his Player Statistics in GameDay, but I can see that he did play 4 matches in the last 4 Northcote league games for that season along with a goal. FastCube (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have merged at Ben Collins (soccer, born 2000). Giant Snowman 06:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the merge GiantSnowman and the input by everyone. --SuperJew (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch: I understand what you are saying, and I personally try to make new pages with a decent amount of real prose. However, AfDs are about notability and "whether a page can be a reasonable size", not "is a page a reasonable size", a point which seems to have been missed out in the million discussions lately (which makes sense as it is led by deletionists). --SuperJew (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that point about "can be" vs "is". That's why I'm a strong proponent of the "Draftify" vote in AfDs for cases like this, where coverage exists, but the editors didn't bother putting in the effort to make it a suitable article. That's my view for a case like this: Merits an article, but this isn't it, yet. Throwing 7 citations to a one line article to me says, I know this can be an article, but I don't want to put in the effort, but I still want the credit for making it without the effort. I don't go through the hassle of nominating these articles for deletion, it's just my initial thought when I see a minimal effort article like this. RedPatch (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and around my thought process too. I wish though that editors would invest their time in expanding and improving such articles instead of AfD'ing and arguing to delete and remove. --SuperJew (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned it up so it actually has some article prose now. RedPatch (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, the page Ben Collins (soccer) which is about a different player, should probably be moved as well. RedPatch (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but that should be done via WP:RM. Giant Snowman 17:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Done, at Talk:Ben_Collins_(soccer)#Requested_move_24_April_2022 RedPatch (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for two recent AfDs

Hi. You may or may not be interested in these discussions, and this thread at WP:AN. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame that good editors have to waste their time dealing with this nonsense.--Echetus Xe 10:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yannick Cotter

Today, he's first been called-up by Juve U23 after a eight month-injury. He last played for Juve U19 in June 2021. If he plays today, will I put 2021 or 2022 in his timestamp with Juve Youth? He's never played for Juve U19 this season at all. Dr Salvus 10:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

2021, since he isn't eligible to play for the U19s anyway as he's 20 years old. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 what do I put in his timestamp at Juve U23? 2021 or 2022? Imo, the reader could think that his contract had ended in 2021 and that he'd made his return at Juve in summer 2022. As far as I remember, he was never called-up by the U23s last season so putting 2021 wouldn't make much sense (but it'd be better than putting 2022). The timestamps about youth players are to be RFC'ed someday.

There's a similar problem at Gabriel Boloca. He'd played with Juve U19 until 2019, when he was loaned to Bologna with whom he was called-up only twice. In 2020, he returned to Juve and received six calls-up by Juve U23 during the last season and he could technically play with Juve U19 but didn't. This year, he's been benched 21 times and he's made his debut only today. (Juve U23 are currently plaing Legnano) What do I put in his timestamps when I create his page at the end of Juve U23's match? Dr Salvus 12:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

For Cotter, I would keep Juventus open (2020–) until he makes his U23 debut; at that point, I would close off Juventus (2020–2022) and open Juventus U23 (2022–). My reasoning is that he is technically contracted to Juventus (as a company), but due to his injury he was not part of any of its rosters (U19, U23 or senior) during the 2021–22 season (for now).

For Boloca, I would write this:

I would start his U23 career in 2021 as he was regularly part of the U23's roster since 2021, and has not played at youth level since his stint at Monza in 2020–21. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wish me luck.....

I have to create an infobox kit template for this shirt.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow - great kit as well! Giant Snowman 10:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Having done a bit of kit template creation myself, you have my upmost sympathy... REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"I'm blind!" Well, that shirt feels hypnotic! If I stare long enough I am sure I will see other patterns, maybe even an elephant!! Govvy (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Lees-Melou

I noticed this article about a Premier League footballer has been massively neglected. There is no written prose except for the lead section, with nothing on his life or his career. The stats table is also not updated as of writing this comment (I will take care of that), and overall it really is surprising that an article about a Premier League player has been neglected this badly. I don't know if there are any more articles like this, but it really is something we as editors need to watch out for more often. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably because until this year he played in France. I notice his French wiki page has quite a bit of info. It would be easy to write prose based off that, since the French article is well sourced. It's not uncommon for players in non-English language leagues to have less prose simply due to viewers/sources. A French person is probably more likely to make a French article about a French player in a French league than an English-speaking person would simply due to what they follow/read/write/etc. Easier to find sources in your own language, etc RedPatch (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The French article strangely had highly concentrated information in his amateur years with a club that doesn't have an enwiki page, and mere lines to mention his transfers as a professional. I have expanded the English article, mainly based off a source from the Norwich fansite Pink Un, which was quite detailed in the bigger picture and not just "he played, he scored" 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:E9BB:2653:9024:7560 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Young footballers whose article get GA status

Have there ever been any articles on a footballer who's played at senior levels since no more than two years getting GA status? Dr Salvus 11:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Tammy Abraham and Trent Alexander-Arnold were promoted after less than 2 years of pro football. I personally don't like the idea of promoting an article of a footballer in such a premature stage of their career. These players have potentially 15 years of top-level football, and the articles will change drastically in the 13 years following the GA promotion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Slew GA status after three years of being a professional, 31 league games, aged 21. Pretty uninspiring career since then but I've kept it up to date since he went on to briefly play for Port Vale.--Echetus Xe 11:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, I could be thinking to nominate some pages about a few Juve U23 player for GA soon. Only a few, because some youth careers are unclear and unfortunately Juventus' photos are copyrighted (how much does it earn from copyrighted photos to justify their needing to copyright them?) I don't agree with Nehme1499's opinion shown before as an article can keep its quality when there is/are editor(s) interested in the page. Dr Salvus 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Nehme : it is utterly bonkers to nominate an article about a player who is still in the formative stage of their career. Spike 'em (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I took Harvey Elliott to GA standard last year. I think that there is nothing wrong with trying to bring these kind of articles to GA standard as long as you don't just forget about them after you've finished as they will need updating over time if they are to retain GA status. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not how copyright works. As soon as something is created, whether it's a photograph, a film, a book or whatever, it is automatically copyrighted under EU law. Unless someone chooses to waive copyright like contributors to Wikipedia do, it will remain copyrighted. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

1962 FIFA World Cup qualification

I am somewhat confused, but how many articles are there? I've stacked three little articles to one AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1962 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL – Group 3) because all the information is already on 1962 FIFA World Cup qualification, so I really don't get the multiple smaller articles with the same information. I wanted to include more if you look at the AfD history. What do people think? Should these also be bundled in?

?? Govvy (talk) 09:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the overview article on the whole qualification process isn't an overview because it includes everything. Not sure whether the individual groups are necessary, probably for UEFA tbf but the others could easily be included in one continental article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The main article seems pretty conclusive on content. Think I would need more input to decide to bundle more together. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Soulé, Miretti and De Winter

They're three Juventus U23's players who have played today in the lost semifinal of the Youth League. During Youth League matches, they passed from the U23 to U19 team. Do I write what they've done with Juve U19 this season in the "youth career" section or in another section? They've all made more than 25 professional matches this season so they're not youth players. Dr Salvus 14:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Some links would be helpful as I have no idea what their full names are, but if this information really worthy of note? If they are already professionals, then I would say there is no real need to include exploits in a youth league, per WP:NOTDIARY. Spike 'em (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em The UEFA Youth League is not a youth league! It's a competition in which there are the best European youth teams. In addition, Juve U19 had reached the semifinals, their best placement in the cup ever. Dr Salvus 15:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Explain that then, I am not a mind reader. Spike 'em (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em the UEFA Youth League can be compared to a Champions League for youth teams and I don't believe it's not notable as they helped Juve U19 to reach the semifinals (thier best placement ever). I don't want to cover everything they've done. Just the number of appearances made and goals scored and maybe something else but not a lot. Dr Salvus 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How you have arranged it for Fabio Miretti looks fine to me, although ideally there would be something more specific about the Benfica match or a summary of their UYL campaign overall as a reference. Crowsus (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It should be chronological; the lack of years makes it very confusing to read! Giant Snowman 10:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - I think that as everything ultimately relates to Juventus, the subheadings should be removed and everything just out in chronological order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe dividing by season rather than by team (U19, U23, senior) is more appropriate. So, in the "2021–22 season" subheading of "Juventus", we'd include (chronologically) their events for Juventus teams in general. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I had been thinking. When I have my PC, I'll do this. Dr Salvus 11:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

still a youth league...Muur (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added much information at Miretti's article (I'll do the same at De Winter and Soulé's article when I've got the will to). Perhaps, I've a bit exaggerated as I've added what he did in Youth League but many sources have given importance at Juventus U19's Youth League campaign. The article is to be cleant-up anyway. Sorry if I may not have been neutral but he's my favourite Juventus U23 player and I hope he will not be loaned to a Serie B team (as he's going to...).and that Acciuga will field him for much more games.

However, it can't be said that everything done in a youth competition isn't notable. Dr Salvus 20:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed De Winter and Soulé's articles. I don't know whether De Winter's article should have information about what he's done this season with the U19s. He only played the semifinal match against Benfica. Then I'll add the UYL information to the other Juve U19's players who're notable, maybe tomorrow. Dr Salvus 23:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Another thing I'd forgot to ask. Miretti made his pro debut in the mid of the last season. To make the article chronogical, I've also merged what he did at Juve U19 and what he's doing at Juve U23 onto the same section. Is this fine? Dr Salvus 20:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are you putting in so much information about youth competitions? Giant Snowman 20:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Juve U23 are not a youth team. Dr Salvus 20:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

No but the U19 are. The prose is full of trivial, non-encyclopaedic content. We do not write 'X played in this game, and then that game, and then another game' for senior players, and we certainly should not do the same for youth players. Giant Snowman 20:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Juventus U19 players

When this season finishes, I'd like to add their number of games and goals for Juve U19 both specifically for the Youth League and for every competition. Would it be worth it though to have two types of statistics in the prose? Dr Salvus 20:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that level of detail for a youth career is not needed. Giant Snowman 21:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman that level of detail for a youth career is not needed. What are you talking about? Do you mean I should include the appearances in all competitions or only in the Youth League?

Another question I'd arleady asked with no reply, do I write De Winter played the semifinal or not? the semifinal is his only game for the U19s this season. Dr Salvus 21:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

How do other sources usually describe these situations? Do multiple independent sources talk in detail about the specific U19 stats of Juventus players? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499 Soccerway and GSA do cover their stats for this season. Dr Salvus 06:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If the statistics have a source, there is no harm in mirroring on the article if done right. Surprisingly enough, the top level youth leagues stats are pretty well covered. We do have WP:NOSTATS to be aware of, it's all about balance on an article. If a player has a long career, I feel it's best to limit their youth career to be concise. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I start thinking that having separate statistics for UEFA Youth League is excessive (except for Soulé, Miretti and perhaps De Winter). When the season finishes, I'll add their stats for all competitions (not to violate NOTSTATS) and will include that they did contribute Juve U19 reach the semifinals. Dr Salvus 09:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No - U19 stats should not be included. Giant Snowman 20:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman Miretti was not given the number 21 jersey by Juventus but by the U23.

Who's said such information isn't notable? They played Youth League helping thier side reach their best-ever result in the competition and it's only a brief summary about what done with the U19s. There's not 10,000 MB of useless info. Dr Salvus 20:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

To conclude, this season, their matches with U19 have only been in Youth League, so it would literally be like adding "X made N appearances and scored Y goals with the under-Zs throughout the season which can be done. Dr Salvus 21:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

For the exact same reason that youth players are not considered notable. It is a trivial event, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 18:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. As long as there isn't undue weight, I don't see the issue in adding some relevant info about their youth career. It's like saying that, because playing in the Lebanese league isn't considered notable, we can't add information about the club career of Lebanese internationals. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That's comparing apples and oranges. Giant Snowman 18:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that playing for an Italian u19 team is the same level/note/worth as a senior player in Lebanon? Giant Snowman 18:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd even argue that the Italian U19 is more notable than the Lebanese senior. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but whatever. We do not have details of every game and goal for senior players, so we definitely should not for youth players. Giant Snowman 18:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Narrating game by game what a youth player does is definitely not ok. But a quick summary saying that they scored x goals in y games for Juventus U19, if properly sourced, is not an issue imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; but that is not what Doc Salvus has been doing. Giant Snowman 18:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, You must have read the text distractley. The text has only brief summaries Dr Salvus 19:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

To add, the information is composed by only two/three sentences. The sentence you've written does not help the average reader, who would ask what Miretti had done for Juve U19. I've briefly cited the two (not ten or one-hundred) goals scored in the Youth League. It's a bit more notable as he played in a continental competition. Dr Salvus 19:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Again - why is a player scoring a goal in a game notable? It is not. Giant Snowman 19:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman I could understand the removing of this part of information but not the rest of the information. You have also removed other information. Dr Salvus 19:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

eh? Giant Snowman 19:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

What I say is that I accept the idea that specifying the opponents of the goals isn't really notable but why have you removed the sentences which say the number of games and goals and the fact he was one of the team who reached the semifinal (thier best ever placenent)? Why do you also believe the unofficial debut isn't important? Dr Salvus 19:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Another thing I've done: here I've re-added the information removed by you without including the useless focus about his goals. I've also edited the name of a section as Juve U19 aren't a senior team (to make it chronological, I've merged Juve U19 and U23 together) as he's played for both the U19s and U23s during these two seasons Dr Salvus 20:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Saying he played? Fine. Saying how many games and goals? OK. Saying he reached the semi-finals with the team? Yeah, OK. The rest? trivial. Giant Snowman 20:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD noms

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Bradshaw, an England international, and many others by the same nominator. Seasider53 (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, admin Doczilla should just loose his admin abilities for clearly failing to perform any kind of WP:BEFORE. That posting top players to AfD is dam right shocking. Someone should report him to ANI. And I am going to bed. Govvy (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Football AfD's not being sorted? I've noticed a few in my searches not popping up on lists. Just to warn you guys to keep an eye out. I saw some and lost some! It's feeling like a storm now. Govvy (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There is Sydney Beaumont and Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904) too. Baxter's article (nominated by a different editor) hasn't had a source in the 16 years since it was created. Current votes-that-aren't-considered-"votes" are favouring deletion, thinking it's a hoax article. Seasider53 (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This user seems to have a habit of AFD'ing lightly sourced articles. I count 8 in the last 2 days! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that I have found proof that the Baxter article is not a hoax. Could someone just check to make sure? Here is the AFD page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Baxter (footballer, born 1904). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Of these old-timers being nominated, Frank Bradshaw and Harry Hadley seem to be the most notable. Bradley has a few sources that cover his career and while Bradshaw has fewer of those, they way he is being spoken about indicates to me that he was a well known and notable player in his time. The others I'm not so sure about. I've been doing a search on Sydney Beaumont but haven't found anything substantial. And while we can prove that Baxter indeed excisted, he seems to have been a fairly non-notable player with his biggest claim to fame having appeared in six league matches over a four year period for Leicester. Most of the other nominations aren't really controversial in my books. What we know of Harry Howell is that he played 4 games for Norwich City, Charlie Jowitt made a single first-team appearance for Liverpool during the 1896/97 season as an amateur triallist from a local club called Liverpool Leek[6] and we know almost nothing about Christopher Jones (footballer, born 1909). While I feel the effort put in some of these nominations is quite often substandard, which is rather disappointing when the nominator is an administrator, the harsh truth is that most of these guys are probably non notable. Alvaldi (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

It would get a better reaction from the editors here if you were using a bottom-up approach, focusing on the questionable entries like Jones and Baxter and hundreds of other mundane, poorly sourced league players (a few of my creations maybe fall into that realm too, but I'll fight those battles as they occur) rather than going for England internationals, for which notability can so easily be demonstrated and therefore improvement (which is what is needed rather than deletion) can be requested in other ways than using AfD. Crowsus (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what the point of this deletionist push is? Are they trying to save Wikipedia storage space? I honestly don't understand what the value is.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

They object to sports coverage being so extensive compared to other subjects. It's kind of like affirmative action, only instead of hiring minorities they instead just sacked people from majority groups to redress the balance. --Echetus Xe 22:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Coppa Italia bracket

The ridicolous format of this competition (nothing like the spectatular FA Cup or the Coupe de France) features a bracket whose positions are determinated by teams' league placements. The title holders are in Spot 1, the team who win Serie A are in Spot 2, the team who come 2nd are in Spot 3, the teams who win Serie B are in Spot 22 etc... This does mean we arleady know the fixtures even though no source confirms the games. Can we put the matches when the fixtures haven't been officialised yet? Dr Salvus 18:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve? Seasider53 (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Seasider53, what? Dr Salvus 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve? Seasider53 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Seasider53: I don't think copying and pasting the same response is useful... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DATETOPRES

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Can projects ignore manuals of style. Giant Snowman 07:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. What specifically did you want us to look at? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Can_projects_ignore_manuals_of_style Robby.is.on (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, copy & paste error on my laptop! Giant Snowman 09:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Green (footballer)

I am trying to find sources about Thomas Green (footballer) (born 1883) and was told there might be some coverage on him in the books Swindon Town: The Register 1895-2015: An A-Z of Every First Team Player and QPR Player by Player. Is there anyone here who has access to these books and can check? Alvaldi (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If you're interested, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't aware of this list and although I didn't find these books there or others that look like they could help in this particular case, this is a great future reference. Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I probably would have to goto the British Library, to check those books. However people local to those areas, more chance that certain football books would be available for the local clubs in those libraries. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this either. Thanks for the link Govvy :) --SuperJew (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The English National Football Archive website (which I have a subscription to) gives details such as dates and places of birth and death, playing position, and Football League appearances and goals. I would note that the date of birth, place of birth, and date of death contradict what LFCHistory.net give (ENFA give 31 October 1876, Bebington, 1958, respectively). This date of birth would make more sense, as what our article currently has would mean Green was aged around 14 when playing with Tranmere in 1897, which is highly unlikely. I'll update the article later today. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It would make more sense, at least if the early Tranmere years were with the senior team. The LFCHistory.net also states he played for Southport in 1919 but its not unlikely that they are mixing him with Tommy Green (footballer, born 1893) who also seems to have played there the same year. There is also possible of further mixup as there are at least four footballers named Thomas Green (who all go by Tommy Green). Alvaldi (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The Thomas Green who played at Southport was 'Tommy' aka 'Toby' who played for Leyland, Hamilton Central, Dick, Kerr's XI, Preston North End, Southport, Colne Town between 1919 and 1927 (per ENFA) - that player was born 1900 and played for them 1922-23 per this. However, there was also a Tommy Green (born 1893) who played for West Ham Utd, Southport Central, South Liverpool, Accrington Stanley, Stockport County, Clapton Orient, Heart of Midlothian, Third Lanark, Flint Town, Wavertree Albion, Milners Safe Works between 1919 and 1929 (per ENFA). Giant Snowman 16:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Squad template guidelines

Hello! I used to be a contributor to WP:Footy way back. I have a question about the guidelines for inclusions of players to squad templates. Recently I added Marc Pubill to the squad template of UD Levante since he's broken through to the first team during the spring. I'm thinking that squad templates are for easy navigating between relevant articles, in this case current players involved with the first team. However, user:BrazilianDude70 reverted the edits with two competing explanations of wich neither is great: first he says that the player is not officially registered with the A team. While that's true, that's also true of Daniel Cárdenas (the current number 1 goalkeeper) and Alejandro Cantero. It seems strange that the goalkeeper that has played the most number of games for the first team and who has been the undisputed starter for more than half f it shouldn't be included on the template. The other argument is that the player isn't listed for the first team on the Levante OWS. It seems strange to me that decisions on who to include on squad templates or squad lists should be decided by whoever runs the website for the team. Some club websites are very poorly updated. I'd be thankful for clarification of the wiki guidelines on this matter.--Sebisthlm (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to explain to Mr. Sebisthlm several times, but he does not seem to listen: Cárdenas and Cantero only featured for the first team squad during the entire season, while Pubill doesn't. Pubill only featured in nine first team matches, aside from playing for the B-team in the same season, therefore he's still a B-team player. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plus, Seb, you should actually add a section in the bottom of the talk pages, not in the top. It's harder to keep track of the replies when you're adding the discussion like this. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to the bottom would have been extremely easy for you. Here you go. I have listed the two competing arguments you gave to me above, and addressed them. You don't need to poison the well by talking about "trying" to "explain" anything. I have noted your contradicting personal opinions and I'm asking for clarification of objective guidelines. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Btw, you're listing a third arguemnt now: has ONLY played ffor the first team. Gavi played a game for Barcelona B at the start of the season. He's not officially registered with the first team. So given two of your arguments, he should be removed for the Barcelona squad template, right? Sebisthlm (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Not when he is only playing for the first team. Pubill played for the B-team three weeks ago! I'm done with replying to you, as you can't ask for opinions without trying to personally attack or harrass other user. Chill out, wait for other people's input, then edit afterwards (instead of reverting me while the discussion is ongoing, as you did recently). Cheerio, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out: your arguments don't hold up even when you constantly change them. I asked for clarification of objective guidelines and all I see is you giving your personal opinions, changing them somewhat when you get pushback and then just not replying to some obvious objections that contradict your views (like the Gavi example). It's fine if you stop responding, I'd prefer some objective guidelines or at least someone with a cohesive and non-contradictory view. All I see you doing is gate-keeping and then deflecting. Anyone can look at the time stamps on when who reverted who. I was the one telling you to not revert the page while the matter is being settled. I've not come with any personal attacks or "harrassed" anyone. It's wholy dishonest and insulting to suggest that. Sebisthlm (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:FOOTY conventions is that a player who has played league games for the 1st team of a club is included in the squad navboxes until the next season (in some cases I've removed at the next squad reset if that is mid-season), even if they do not appear on the 1st team page on club websites. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

p.s. I only really edit players who play for English teams, where there is no B-team that plays in a senior league structure, so not sure how this should affect things. Spike 'em (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Given that Spanish squad registration rules only allow for a maximum of 25 players registered, including the few players registered for the B team that actually plays for the A team don't make the squad templates unnecessarily long. They're still going to be smaller than the average PL squad template. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: different scenarios. English football has a completely separated structure for U23 and U21 teams, while Spanish football doesn't, and English teams actually update their websites quickly to be a decent source. Plus, if the player is registered as #26 or above in Spanish football, the player belongs to the reserve team. Period. Then, there are some "special cases" (cases of Cantero, Cárdenas and Gavi brought up here) where the player is exclusively playing for the first team while registered as a reserve team player, so they might be considered first team members.

@Sebisthlm: Check this article from four days ago: "Alessio Lisci cuenta con el exrojiblanco Roberto Soldado en una lista que completan los jugadores del filial Cuñat y Marc Pubill" (Alessio Lisci counts with former red-and-white Roberto Soldado in a list that is completed by the reserve team players Cuñat and Marc Pubill).

Wikipedia is not WP:ILIKEIT, and we should not assume things which aren't real. Pubill played for the B team on 27 March (literally less than a month ago), plus he has more appearances for the B team than for the first team. And again, please stop reverting the page while the discussion is ongoing. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unlike in England, Spanish football doesn't have a reserve league but instead let their reserves play in the league pyramid proper. Clearly it's not the technical team registration that dictates what players are included in the squad template since that would mean Daniel Cárdenas and Gavi wouldn't be included in respective templates. You keep forcing your own interpretation by reverting my changes before this is settled btw. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sebisthlm: Did you read what I just wrote there or are you going to revert content without any proper explanation? The context of Cárdenas and Gavi is completely different than Pubill's, because both Cárdenas and Gavi are playing the entire season with the first team. Aside of that, there's a very recent reference saying that Pubill belongs to the reserve team, not the first team. As I said, Wikipedia is not WP:ILIKEIT, bring some actual reference to prove your opinion instead of reverting and attempting to personally attack others. Thank you, BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you've got the right interpretation here. Pubill has a senior squad number for Levante, and an article here on Wikipedia. There's no reason for him not to be included in the Template:Levante UD squad navbox. – Pee Jay 14:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PJ: I don't see any reason not to include him. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeeJay: @Nehme1499: Pubill has nine first team matches, but played 16 times for the B team. I don't see how he is a full-time first team member when he played more for the reserve team, but OK then, reinstated. Just remind that you are opening a breach to more pointless discussions now, every goddamn player that appear a single minute for the first team might then be included in the template under the excuse that "his page would be less orphaned" (like this case), and then we would clearly provide wrong information for the readers. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Pubill should have both templates, as long as he played at least 1 game for both the senior and B team. Every player that appear a single minute for the first team might then be included in the template: what's the issue with this? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

No issues, just trying to inform the normal reader correctly. What's the point of having a first team squad template when we are listing reserve team players on it? BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not about numbers of matches played, it's about Pubill having an article and being contracted to Levante. All players in the B squad are eligible for the A squad, so why not include him? – Pee Jay 16:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Being contracted or being available for the first team doesn't make him a first team player, with all due honesty. Plus, listing a B team player in the first team template would only confuse the normal reader, IMO. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing about the navbox template that should imply he is part of any particular squad. Look at {{Manchester United F.C. squad}}; no one would assume Noam Emeran is a Manchester United first-team player, he just has a squad number and a Wikipedia article. And even if anyone made that assumption, they could just read the article... – Pee Jay 16:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@PeeJay: No one who knows Manchester United would know that Emeran is not a first team player... Speaking for myself, as I'm not that used to English football, I would believe that Emeran is a first team player for Man Utd as he's listed in the template. Plus, you said it yourself that Spanish and English football have different approaches, I don't think it merits to compare Spanish team templates with English team templates.

A Spanish football example: you put Álvaro Sanz, Ilias Akhomach or Estanis Pedrola in the FC Barcelona squad template? I wouldn't. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

If they've played for the first team, yes, I would put them in the {{FC Barcelona squad}} navbox. As I said, though, the context and nuance would be fully explained by simply reading the article. – Pee Jay 20:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

At the start of each season, when the club releases their squad numbers or first-team list or whatever, that is what the squad template should reflect. over the course of the season, if players get squad numbers but don't play then consider adding them (case-by-case basis) - and if they make a first-team debut then definitely add them. Giant Snowman 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Then what's the point of having a reference to back up what's the first team squad if we can add anyone we thought it would be okay to add? It makes no sense to me at all. We can add all of those guys I told before to the Barcelona template even though we know that they would not play any more minutes during the season...

Aside of that, we are not considering that a normal reader may get confused if the squad in the club's article is different than the squad in the template... BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

He's been given a number, so he should he included everywhere. Full stop. Dr Salvus 21:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Let's add Ander Astralaga to the Barcelona template because he was given the number 42, even though he is the fifth-choice goalkeeper, right? Or maybe Mika Màrmol, who never appeared in a first team call-up, because he was given the number 41... This still makes no sense at all. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Were they given their number for a friendly or an official match? Maybe, there should be only the players called up for an official match (excluding the ones called up for a friendly). Otherwise, I'd include those who've been called up more than X times. Dr Salvus 21:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, a consensus must be reached to avoid this type of (mis)interpretation. In this case, the numbers were given in a Champions League squad list, so, they are official numbers.

I'd say to include only first team members listed by the official website and players who are not listed in the official website but played in 10 or more first team matches for the season. Ten matches would mean that the player is constantly appearing in the squad (if you think that a club play 38 league fixtures + cup and continental competitions per season, it is a fair amout), as only being called up is not even relevant to earn yourself an article, we should follow the criteria. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70 This opinion isn't always correct. Allegri, the worst ever coach with youth sector players (this is one of the reasons I want him away from Juve), often calls up youth players but literally never fields them (except for a couple of minutes at a few players). For example this season, Miretti has recieved 17 (seventeen) calls up during the season but he's played a total of ten minutes. The amount of minutes shouldn't count, but the number of calls up should. Another thing I won't understand, Marley Aké (an U23 player) has been called up for about 10 times (I don't remember the correct number) but Juevntus site does show him as a first team player but Miretti isn't shown despite his higher number of calls-up. So, I'd only put the number of calls-up (unless someone is long-injured, in this case, we'd consult the team site) Dr Salvus 21:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but wouldn't you agree that a player who is actually playing (and one who is listed as a first team player in the club's official website) is more relevant to the squad than a player who is being called up to "complete the bench"? I'd say we stick to the official club information (website, social media, etc), and then the remaining players we should put up a !vote to decide which approach might be the best one to include them (or not). BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

BrazilianDude70, you can be right but my eyes wouldn't be able to see Aké being a first team player with three games but Miretti excluded having played the same number of games and having had much more calls-up than Aké. Dr Salvus 21:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70, I really don't see the problem here. Your assertion (and unilaterally enforced rule) is that we should go by Spanish squad registration rules. That's disregarding that squad registration rules often don't reflect who is actually playing for the first team, since most, if not all, clubs count on playing B and youth team players. Even the amazing Barcelona team of Xavi-Iniesta-Messi consistently didn't even fully use the 25 first team registration slots but instead relied on B team players to fill out the squad. As I have pointed out, a strict only first team registration rule would mean that the goalkeeper with the most amount of games for Pubill's Levante, Daniel Cárdenas, wouldn't be included in the first team template. Neither would Gavi, who's not even registered for the B team. In my view the squad template should facilitate collecting information on players currently playing for a team, regardless of technical registration status, and I don't see what would be gained by not including current players. Football content on Wikipedia is already heavily slanted towards English football whereas content about Spanish and Latin football is lagging behind. It's not going to be a huge problem with bloated squad templates even if you'd allow any player with a single game for the first team on the squad template. I'd also suggest you stop gatekeeping by reverting changes that go against your personal preferences during ongoing discussions. Discussions that have clearly shown that you don't have a consensus behind you. Sebisthlm (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Not all clubs have official websites, let alone an up to date section of first team players. As Dr Salvus noted above, Juventus arbitrarily list Marley Aké as a "first-team" player on their website, rather than other players who have been called up and played more. For me, all first-team players (regardless of apps), and reserve/youth players (with at least 1 app) should be part of the template. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: This still falls under the same thing as we discussed before: then what would happen with the third-choice goalkeepers? Santos FC lists Diógenes and Paulo Mazoti (both GKs) as first team players, but none of them made an appearance with the first team. However, both were called up to matches several times...

That's the main issue for me, not if Pubill should be included or not (I already added him to the Levante template BTW). Some consistency and/or guideline need to exist for this. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

At Juventus F.C., we add the players listed at thier website on a section and we put the players not listed but called up by Allegri at least once onto another sction. This is a good idea imo. I don't like the idea to exclude every player who's not listed at the website and who hasn't played if he's been called up many times without entering the pitch due to bad coach. Dr Salvus 06:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@BrazilianDude70: Third-choice goalkeepers are part of the first-team squad, so they should be included. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Dušan Vlahović

His article has many mini subsections which should be merged together to the bigger subsection, but Nehme disagrees. Do we divide this or not?

Another thing: I'm not very competent on this matter but can't we try to get an authorisation for a better photo? I think this photo isn't the maximum. Dr Salvus 16:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

With such little text, the headings should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If sections are extremely short, subheadings are not needed. I've encountered a few editors who feel subheadings are extremely necessary putting one for each club the player joined with each section with many of the articles full of like 4+ sections of just "In YEAR, he joined Team in League". That was every section. If there was a lot of detail, sure but 1-2 sentences do not require a subheading. Short paragraphs are fine. RedPatch (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

National competitions table format

Hi, community. My question is related to national competitions table format, and I'd like to take the FIFA_World_Cup#Results as example. After taking a look at WP:Footy:competitions, I saw that elements such as the Template:Fb-big or the intercalated light blue background are a bit overwhelming and could be avoided making a simpler table with no such profusion of graphic elements, p.e. using the Template:Fb with no background colors (unless it is necessary to indicate some particular details of the competition).

My question is, the big flags and light blue backgrounds are mandatory? Its use was decided by consensus? Should they be used in all national team articles? .... Anything you can explain to clarify my doubts, will be welcome. Thanks in advance, Fma12 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Are 4th place honors?

I noticed on many national team articles and on club articles that 4th places are mentioned in the honor section.. what's the consensus on this??? I get that a third place can be included as it's an actual medal, but a fourth place?? there are no medals handed out for a fourth place as i'm aware. Someone help me out here please Speun (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen such discussion and I think it's ridiculous including this information. Dr Salvus 18:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! So you agree that it's not something that should be included in the honor sections? Speun (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I asked a similar question just recently. I don't think 4th should be an honour either but it wasn't confirm at the time that there was project wide agreement to change it. As I'd like to see it removed as a colour also for tables.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 19:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's good to know. It doesn't make much sense to include a fourth place. a third place makes sense, since it usually gives an actual bronze medal. Fourth place mentions doesn't make sense, as it doesn't give any physical object for the proof of placement. I saw and edited and deleted an african teams honor, that plaed a quarter final placement in the honor section. I just wanna know where we draw the line. Speun (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Small caveat before mindlessly removing or changing such mentions. The Swedish football championship awards four tiers of medals; gold (1st), big/large silver (2nd), small silver (3rd), and bronze (4th), which you can read more about at Allsvenskan#Medal table. I don't know if there are any Swedish champion player articles mentioning fourth places, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was. There is definitely the use of colour matching the medals for teams though, as can be seen on both List of Malmö FF seasons (FL) and List of IFK Göteborg seasons. Not saying that 4th place is always a honour worthy of mention, but for some competitions that do not follow the standard medal scheme, it might actually be reasonable to include it given that the fourth-placed teams/players receive medals. – Elisson • T • C • 20:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Elisson on this. Reading the earlier comments I became concerned that some here who are quite likely not in a position to do so were speaking as if they know what happens all over the world. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure that makes sense, guess I don't like seeing 4th in the tables, especially when you have it as some teams finishing 4th in a four team competition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Cosenza Calcio

At the moment, we have three articles:

Cosenza Calcio, the club currently in Serie B
Cosenza Calcio 1914, the historic club founded in 1914 and dissolved in 2005
A.S. Cosenza Calcio, an illegitimate phoenix club of the club founded in 1914

I believe that the content of the second article (1914) should be merged into the current club, as is done with all phoenix clubs in Italy. The illegitimate phoenix club isn't encyclopaedic in my opinion, as they had only played in the (amateur) Serie D. Maybe it could be mentioned in one paragraph in the current club's article. It's also important to note that the Italian project also only has the current club's article, and has merged all the content together. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm down with that, would do this too. Dr Salvus 19:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Fabio Miretti's goals for Juventus U19

The last season, he played with the U19s. Many sources contraditct to each other with the number of apps and goals scored (but all the sites say he'd scored five/six goals in more o less 30 matches). I don't like leaving such information as the number of goals scored with the U17s is shown (16 nets in 17 games for a midfielder) as well as the number of goals while playing with the Pulcini (one-houndred-and-seventy-seven). Can I add the Lega Serie A profile (I'm insure wheter it shows he game in the play-offs for the title)? I'm not very good at deciding whether info is needed or not, can anyone check if today I've added any unnedeed? Dr Salvus 20:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Jeez - how many threads do you need to start about this inane topic?! As you have already been told, if sources disagree and you cannot determine which is correct then leave the information out. In any event the number of games/goals for a U17/U19 team is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia if only sourced to stats databases. Giant Snowman 20:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It'll have been the 1000000000000th time (I do have an hard head) I've asked this but you'd never told me that the U17/U19 stats weren't notable if provided by a stats site but the Lega Serie A's isn't only for stats. Dr Salvus 20:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

who cares? Youth career deserves a 1 line mention as background, not in depth analysis. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Spike 'em (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, I'm the worst person to decide whether something is noteworthy or not... Dr Salvus 20:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically, my rule of thumb is this. If one is unsure if something is notable, it probably isn't. If it is notable, it'll seem obvious that it is notable. RedPatch (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Saving articles at AfD

Hi. Could someone with knowledge of Arabic add to Saleh Abdulhameed? The article is at risk of being deleted. The player made 30 appearances for the Bahrain national team and spent eight years at Al-Muharraq SC, one of the most successful clubs in the fully professional Bahraini Premier League. Would be a pity for the article to go. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Nehme1499:. That was just what the doctor ordered. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's another one: 2010–11 SC Bastia season. SC Bastia is one of three major Corsican clubs and has a large following so I would assume there's a lot of coverage. I've tried to add a little bit (diff). Maybe others with knowledge of French and French football can find more good sources? @Paul Vaurie:, @Gricehead:? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

SC Bastia were in the third tier, Championnat National, in 2010–11. It's not a fully professional league, so by my understanding (based on English standards) that article should be deleted, unless it stands up against GNG by itself. Regards, Gricehead (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Perhaps we can come up with "significant coverage"? We have multiple FAs about Gillingham seasons, mostly when the club played in the Third Division. Surely we should be able to find enough material to make "2010–11 SC Bastia season" at least "starter" quality? Robby.is.on (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

mitrovic

there are people running around saying that hes scored the most second tier goals ever, however its not true as the record is 59. this is just more bs about how football started in 1992 with the invention of the premier league. https://twitter.com/skyfootball/status/1519023794668646400?s=21&t=Z6PFldan3-5tHBs8ovsrTw weirdly enuogh it was sky sports themselves calling out the bullshit of him having the record. the only record he has is the most since 1992, as stated by bbc sport which... isnt a relevant stat. its the most in the championship... but thats even worse as its records since 2004.Muur (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Mitrovic's record is for the most goals in a 46 game second tier season, which the BBC do call out deep in their article. Our own article points out that the English second tier only reached 24 clubs in 1988. Regards, Gricehead (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Even that doesn't make sense, because George Camsell scored 59 goals in the Second Division in 1926/27 when only 42 games were played. So the record is based on "the most goals in a season of exactly 46 games, ignoring instances when players scored more goals in fewer games"....? What nonsense on the part of the media -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think what the journalist meant to say is 'most goals in one season in the second tier since the Premier League began' or 'most goals in one season in the EFL Championship' or something... Giant Snowman 13:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

if you have to put a million different qualifiers to have it count, then it really isn't notable.Muur (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

United League table 1897-98

I was adding the table to my sandbox from an old book by Phil Soar, but a lot of the numbers are seriously wrong in this version of his book. Anyone else have the table somewhere to compare? Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the "position" column not redundant, given the sections of the table? Seasider53 (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

? Why would the pos column be redundant? Govvy (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy: I think Seasider is referring to whatever that player appearances/goals table is which is in the same sandbox. You have a heading of "goalkeepers", then all the goalkeepers have a value of GK in the "position" column, which is redundant because you already have a heading saying that they are goalies -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. One should have said section headings. Seasider53 (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's an old table of mine and off subject of what I asked! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We have to go to the table article you linked to to see the book you're talking about. But, yes, off-topic. Seasider53 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Andy Kelly's site has (a version of) that table. Click on 1897-98 and then scroll to the right. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus re: EFL play-off appearances/goals and player statistics

Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but just wanted to know in advance what the consensus is (if any) regarding the EFL play-offs, specifically how any appearances made and goals scored by players who feature in these are recorded.

A player's infobox stats only includes league appearances and goals (as well as national team apps/goals) - are the play-offs considered part of the league for this purpose?

Additionally, in the career statistics tables, are play-off appearances and goals to be included in the league columns, or should they be recorded under 'Other' with a note?

Thanks FilthyDon (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My experience, which I would have got from here, is that they are treated as a separate "cup" competition, and therefore included under the "other" column of the career statistics table, and not included in the infobox. Regards, Gricehead (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely "other" appearances and not in infobox -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, play-offs are 'others' - this is also how Soccerbase records them (but unfortunately not Soccerway). Giant Snowman 15:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

soccerway are a pain in the ass for that actually, especially for players in the lower english leagues plus india and Australia who use play offs to determine the champions. there will be hundreds of pages have incorrectly added play off appearances to the info box i remember adam le fondre did that for india and Australia for years till i fixed it.Muur (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Worldfootball.net and Soccerbase differentiate play-off appearances, Soccerway does not which is annoying. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding a hatnote next to the appearances in the infobox, to also show the apps and goals totals including play-offs? This is what the Italian project does (example). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No thanks. Kante4 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely not. Giant Snowman 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hans Nicolussi

In November 2020, he had an ACL injury. He was to return in August 2021, but he broke his meniscus. He returned to the field in November, playing a couple of games before having a new injury which has since been keeping him far from the pitch (today he's first been called up since November). The problem is that no source says the kind of injury had in November. How can I explain the average reader the reason he was kept far from the pitch? I think saying that he had a injury without specifying its kind would be incomplete. Dr Salvus 18:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source that says he was injured in November 2021? If so just say that. Giant Snowman 18:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, as far as I remember there's no source saying the month of his injury. They only say he hasn't played due to an injury since November. During the following weeks of his injury, sources said he woudld've played soon but didn't. As far as I remember Juventus never published a press release saying the kind of injury and when it occurred (and I remember they made it for various U23 players) Dr Salvus 18:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

If the source says "he has not played due to injury since November 2021", then we say that he has not played due to injury since November 2021. Giant Snowman 18:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Juventus, his injury was to the left knee. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There are so many injuries involving a knee. However, I'll add the information when I update U23's stats Dr Salvus 19:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've managed to find the source talking about the moment he got injured, according to this source he got injured on 20 November. Dr Salvus 20:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In the long run it isn't critical what was the exact date he got injured or what the exact injury was. --SuperJew (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, as per WP:NOTGOSSIP news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person. The articles should summarise a players career, not just be a series of statements that On nn mmm yyyy he did something. Spike 'em (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a national team

In the wiki article of Pep Guardiola "Catalonia" is listed as his national team. This is not correct.

Catalonia is not a country and the Catalonia team is in no way a national team, not politically, not by recognition of the international nor national football federations. It's a regional team that can only play in friendly matches, and it's part of the Royal Spanish Football Federation along all the other regional/territorial federations (Andalusia, Castile-Leon, Madrid, Asturias...). Its amateur section even participates in the UEFA Regions' Cup in which other non-national regions take part (Veneto, Castile-Leon, Bavaria, Jersey...).

The same goes for the article of the Catalonia national football team article, in which the references to "national" are incorrect.

This might be a translation error (these teams are called "selections" in Spanish, which does not have a direct translation to English and it's often translated as "national team", as these "selections" do normally refer to national teams: the French national team would be "the French Selection" ("Selección Francesa") and so on). That said, several requests to correct these objective errors have been disregarded, which makes me think there might be some political biases at play here.

It should be corrected.

In Pep Guardiola's article:

• Catalonia should be removed as his "national team" or moved to a new "regional team" section.

• Catalonia should not appear listed in the "international career" section.

In the Catalonia national football team article:

• "National" should be removed from the title, or replaced by "regional" or by a direct translation of its original name (which is the same in both Spanish and Catalan language and roughly translates to "Catalonia Football Squad"). The same should be done to any other references of Catalonia as a "national team" in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Chumbo One (talk • contribs)

The correct translation for Selección Española de Fútbol is Spain national football team and the same applies to Catalonia. Context is important, just because selección literally translates as selection, does not mean that that is always the correct translation. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In the players context, what is currently there is correct as Catalonia etc play matches against official national teams. However it is true that they don't have the same status as those FIFA national teams and a different adjective should be considered so there is less confusion (although it could be argued that Gibraltar and the Faroe Islands, to give just two examples, are not independent nations either; nor are the British Home nations by some interpretation, and actually Catalonia is an area that has been defined as a nation within Spain under its constitution. This is by no means the first time this point has been raised, I don't know if a consensus was formed in previous discussions. Crowsus (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Qed237

Hi folks,

You may remember Qed237, who I am guessing has left Wikipedia as I've seen on the user talk page at various points in recent years. I've now noticed a notice change though I'm not sure if that is right or not. It appeared the user had stopped editing a month after I registered with my current user name and I'm not sure why someone has changed the notice at the top of that talk page, whenever that was. Reverting that change could solve that problem unless the user does indeed comes back. And it's not summer yet. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iggy. I remember them. Could you restate the issue or "problem" you want to discuss? I'm having trouble making sense of what you wrote. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit, which I have now found, appears to have replaced one version of a page with another, I don't think that should have ever been made and there was no edit summary either. Also Lowercase sigmabot had placed a duplicate in archive 26 and an old conversation in archive 28. Hope that makes more sense Robby.is.on. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks. That is odd… Robby.is.on (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Would someone experienced be able to rectify this? Maybe @GiantSnowman: or @Mattythewhite:? Robby.is.on (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

done, I think... Giant Snowman 18:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, GS. Was that it, Iggy? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: yes, looks like what it should be re the top of the talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Aaron James Ramsey

The more famous Aaron Ramsey, who plays for Rangers at this point, has the middle name James. Just now when I saw the top of the article, I see there is also a Aaron Ramsey (footballer, born 2003) page, looking at that infobox, it also says his middle name is James as well. Both claims are sourced so we should assume they are correct. Therefore, I am wondering if the full name redirect page should change role (from it's current redirect to the primary footballer) as the one born in 2003 could be more notable as time goes by. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been bold and have transformed Aaron James Ramsey into a disambig page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It has to be said I think the chances of anyone typing in Aaron James Ramsey as a search are pretty slim..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree for obvious reasons. Not everyone knows the full names of famous people well unless the full names consists of both first and last names such as Roy Hodgson for example. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If Aaron Ramsey is a primary topic with no disambiguator, I see no reason that Aaron James Ramsey shouldn't redirect to Aaron Ramsey. --SuperJew (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with SuperJew. If the Welsh player is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then logically he's also the primary topic for the name with the middle name in it too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't automatically say that the middle name would be the primary topic as well, as sometimes people will use the middle name as a disambiguator from someone more famous. For example, Michael B. Jordan using it to differentiate from Michael Jordan. I don't know anything about this new player, but it could be that he would go by his full name to differentiate from Aaron Ramsey, it'd just be coincidental that he'd have the exact same name. However, if he did/does go by his full name, the full name could be "more common" for him and the short name for the other player. Especially that he wouldn't be automatically be the primary name for the middle name because if no one uses the middle name, then it wouldn't be "common" for him. Definitely, primary under the base name, but someone who sees the full name might think "this has to be someone else because if they wanted to talk about Aaron Ramsey, they'd say Aaron Ramsey". Another option, would be to create Aaron Ramsey (disambiguation) and then have Aaron James Ramsey link to that, in case future Aaron Ramsey's become notable. RedPatch (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible Disruptive Editing

Could someone with familiarity in women's soccer please have a look at the contribs of 90.255.168.165?[7] They have been engaging in mass changes to articles about women soccer players without edit summaries or citing any sources. I have blocked them for 72 hrs and may consider extending it. And I have reverted quite a few as unsourced changes but there are hundreds of rapid fire edits, and I suspect possible vandalism. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Qualified teams table for AFC Champions League season articles

There is two kinds of format: Option 1 : UEFA kind:

NOTE: The following list of participating teams is provisional. The final list of participating teams will be confirmed by the AFC, based on the final slot allocation for each association and the list of teams passing the club licensing requirements.

The labels in the parentheses show how each team qualified for the place of its starting round:

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th: League positions of the 2022/2022–23 season (unless shown otherwise)
CW: Domestic cup winners of the 2022/2022–23 season (unless shown otherwise)
PR: Premier, regular-season winner
PW: End-of-season play-off winner
TBC: To be confirmed

The tournament is divided into West Region (WR) and East Region (ER).

Qualified teams for 2023–24 AFC Champions League
Entry round		Teams
Group stage	WR
		(1st)	(CW)	(1st 21–22)	^{[Note TBC]}
		^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}
		(1st)	(CW)	^{[Note TBC]}	(1st)
		(1st)	^{[Note TBC]}	(1st)	(PW)
	ER
		(1st)	(CW)	(2nd)	(1st)
		(CW)	(2nd)	(1st)	(CW)
		^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note HKG]}^{[Note TBC]}	(1st)
		(1st)	(1st)	(1st)	^{[Note TBC]}
Play-off round
	WR	(CW 21–22)	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}
	WR	(2nd)
	ER	(3rd)	(3rd)	(2nd)	(3rd)
	ER	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}
Preliminary round
	WR	(3rd)	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}	(CW)
	WR	^{[Note TBC]}	^{[Note TBC]}
	ER	^{[Note HKG]}^{[Note TBC]}	(CW)	(1st)	^{[Note TBC]}

Notes

^
Hong Kong (HKG): Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Premier League and all cup tournaments for the 2021–22 season were cancelled, with the teams to qualify for the Champions League yet to be announced.^[1]
^
To-be confirmed (TBC): Due to the change of the competition date to Autumn-Spring format, these nations will have two domestic season completed before the competition starts. They are expected to announce their own slot allocation method for the competition, but haven't confirmed it yet.

Option 2 : old AFC kind with appearance:

NOTE: The following list of participating teams is provisional. The final list of participating teams will be confirmed by the AFC, based on the final slot allocation for each association and the list of teams passing the club licensing requirements.

In the following table, the number of appearances and last appearance count only those since the 2002–03 season (including qualifying rounds), when the competition was rebranded as the AFC Champions League.

Note: Only teams assured of a place are displayed.^[a]

West Region
Team	Qualifying method	App. (last)
	2022–23 Saudi Professional League champions
	2022–23 King Cup winners
	2021–22 Saudi Professional League champions
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}	1st
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	2022 Uzbekistan Super League champions
	2022 Uzbekistan Cup winners
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	2022 Jordanian Pro League champions
	2022 Tajikistan Higher League champions
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	2022 Ýokary Liga champions
	Winners of additional playoff between 2021–22 Indian Super League Regular season premiers and 2022–23 Indian Super League Regular season premiers

Qualifying play-off participants
Team	Qualifying method	App. (last)
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	2022 Uzbekistan Super League runners-up
	2022 Uzbekistan Super League third place
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	2022 Jordan FA Cup winners
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	2021–22 Bangladesh Premier League champions

East Region
Team	Qualifying method	App. (last)
	2022 K League 1 champions
	2022 Korean FA Cup winners
	2022 K League 1 runners-up
	2022 J1 League champions
	2022 Emperor's Cup winners
	2022 J1 League runners-up
	2022 Chinese Super League champions
	2022 Chinese FA Cup winners
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note HKG]}
	2022 V.League 1 champions
	2022 DPR Korea Premier Football League champions
	2022 Philippines Football League champions
	2022 Malaysia Super League champions
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}

Qualifying play-off participants
Team	Qualifying method	App. (last)
	2022 K League 1 third place
	2022 J1 League third place
	2022 Chinese Super League runners-up
	2022 Chinese Super League third place
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}
	TBC^{[Note HKG]}
	2022 Vietnamese Cup winners
	2022 Singapore Premier League champions
	TBC^{[Note TBC]}

Notes

^ If the AFC Champions league winners are from top associations and have not qualified through their domestic performance, they will replace the lowest-seeded team from their association.

^
Hong Kong (HKG): Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Premier League and all cup tournaments for the 2021–22 season were cancelled, with the teams to qualify for the Champions League yet to be announced.^[2]
^
To-be confirmed (TBC): Due to the change of the competition date to Autumn-Spring format, these nations will have two domestic season completed before the competition starts. They are expected to announce their own slot allocation method for the competition, but haven't confirmed it yet.

References

^ "Arrangement of 2021-2022 BOC Life Hong Kong Premier League and cup matches". Hong Kong Football Association. 25 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
^ "Arrangement of 2021-2022 BOC Life Hong Kong Premier League and cup matches". Hong Kong Football Association. 25 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.

Which table should use in continental club football competition season articles? Thoughts? Hhkohh (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Option 2 It will be a huge work if you want to use the same table in different continental club football competition season articles. See 2020–21 CAF Champions League, 2021 Copa Libertadores, 2021 CONCACAF Champions League and 2021 OFC Champions League Qby (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 Same formatting as recent Champions League articles in Africa, Oceania and others. The equivalent for UEFA is at it's current format as there are 80 teams in this years edition and provisionally 79 next season and there are more rounds in UEFA than anyone else so using option 2 is better for these pages above. Using this option for UEFA will have a large part of those pages with a list of teams and how they qualified and some of those associations will have four qualified teams making merging doubling the effort compared to two. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 Maintain the status quo for AFC Champions League and AFC Cup, as it is still readable, and matching the format of the equivalent tournaments in CAF, CONCACAF, OFC, CONMEBOL. I understand if it is better in the other format for the UEFA competition, but I don't feel that because it exists it should be made the sole standard format. Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Transfermarkt

A day, I had read transfermarkt wasn't a reliable source as the pages are user-generated. I sometimes edit transfermarkt and I can state that every edit you want to do there must be approved by an admin. So, are there any other reasons it's not reliable? Dr Salvus 10:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it is user generated! It doesn't matter that it's 'checked' by another random person. Giant Snowman 10:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The random person is an admin, somebody I think is trusted Dr Salvus 11:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Just do what I do. I'll look at transfrmarkt as a base, see what information is there, the google that information to find a wiki-approved source. Usually fairly easy to find the information and it beats trying to change the transfrmarkt is not a reliable source policy (and to be fair I have found a couple of instances of incorrect data on transfrmarkt). RedPatch (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They are a lot better than use to be, use to be far worse, but they have improved a lot as a website the last few years. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

...and this is exactly what people should be doing. A random admin at Transfrmarkt is no more reliable than a random user who enters the data to begin with, although I suppose it does cut the chance of error down (always assuming that the admin is actually checking the entry, which let's face it is not guaranteed). Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Want to know my problem? I do need Coppa Italia Serie C for Juventus U23 players which aren't covered in any site unless we're looking to trasfermarkt Dr Salvus 11:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I've found diretta.it but I'm not familiar with the site which covers the stats of the competition. It looks similar to GSA. Can this be considered a reliable source? Dr Salvus 12:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

In my experience with TM, the statistics seem to be as reliable as any other database we deem to be reliable. Of course, the market values are purely subjective. But I see no issues in using their stats database and news articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the only one who thinks so, but it'd be useless discuting imo. But we'll never manage to change the rule. Dr Salvus 12:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They do seem to have some "face value" statistics. Hassan Maatouk is shown to have scored 7 goals in 15 games for Lebanon U20. However, when trying to see the detailed game-by-game stats, there is no information ([8]). As long as the statistics are actually linked to match reports available on the website, I think it's fine to use those. Stats which have no games associated to them should be ignored. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Right. TM is not the bad in the form of a website. Dr Salvus 12:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

again - Transfermaekt should not be used as it is not considered reliable. by all means do what RedPatch and use it as a springboard to find other sources. Giant Snowman 12:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When I edited TM (my nickname there is Dr-Salvus) I was always required to provide a source, so the information isn't invented. Dr Salvus 12:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I do need Coppa Italia Serie C stats, can I include diretta.it (I don't know how to determine whether a source is reliable or not) Dr Salvus 12:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RS or ask at WP:RSN. Giant Snowman 12:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I wish they published the sources for the stats on their pages in a separate section, would make it a lot easier to get sources here, or even consider them as a proper source. Maybe an admin can provide it on request.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Association football at FAR

I have nominated Association football for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

When should league positions be updated?

See this dif: I argue that the teams currently playing in the playoffs should not be updated yet. Number 57 argues that we should display the league they are currently playing in (Serie B), and their regular season position (2021–22: Serie B, 7th of 20), even though the club could potentially be promoted to the Serie A via playoffs. To me, this gives the false impression that the club has finished 7th and will play in the Serie B in 2022–23. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The league positions should be updated when the league season is finished (and this is how it has worked with English leagues for as long as I can remember). My experience is that if you leave it even a few days after the end of the league season, people start manually editing the fields to update the finishing position and remove the updater. Your argument is also inconsistent, as the Italian updater shows the automatically promoted/relegated teams as still being in Serie B (which they are) but apparently it's only an issue that clubs in the play-offs are still listed as being in Serie B? Number 5 7 11:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting the timing of the updates was discussed when the first updater was created, and there was unanimous agreement that the positions should be updated when the league season ends. Hence this update yesterday for example. Number 5 7 11:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It should show the current situation, and updated as soon as regular league season ends. Any playoffs remaining can be adjusted separately when they are resolved. Spike 'em (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2022 (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.

Josef Adelbrecht (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in the war. His German wikipedia article states he was killed on the Russian front NW of Moscow. Disputable death date.
Dragutin Babic (Yugoslavia) - there is a source in Croat language but it is unclear to me it indicates manner of death
Josef Bergmaier (Germany)
Jozsef Eisenhoffer (Hungary) - also disputed death circumstances
Bronislaw Fichtel (Poland) - disputed death date (see talk page)
Hermann Flick (Germany)
Josef Fruhwirth (Austria) - categorised as Austrian military personnel killed in WWII. His article in Germany wikipedia has citation to an Austrian newspaper report of his death which I find unreadable, I can only make out he died on the 'Ostfront' (Eastern Front).
Nikolai Gromov (Russia) - Russian language profile says he 'died at the front' in 1943 without further detail. More informative sources if found preferred.
Karl-Richard Idlane (Estonia) - Death cause and death dates (both in 1942) disputable.
Karl Kanhauser (Austria/Czechoslovakia) - German wikipedia states without citation he was drafted into the German army towards end of WWII and deployed to Yugoslavia where he was reported missing, no final year given.
Franz Krumm (Germany) - There is a link to the German Volksbund website but it does not directly connect to his details and I lack expertise to interrogate the site.
Willi Lindner (Germany) - source in German language, not fully clear about death details
Johann Luef (Austria) - his German wikipedia article indicates he died of wounds in hospital in East Prussia.
Josef Madlmayer (Austria)
Artur Marczewski (Poland) - his Polish and German wikipedia articles state without citation he disappeared in January 1945 following Red Army advance into Poland, where he had been working for the Germans as a factory official.
Vladimir Markov (footballer) (Russia) - Stated in Olympedia to have died in Leningrad in 1942, which coincided with the long running siege of the city. Can evidence be found for treating him as a victim of the siege?
Alexander Martinek (Austria/Germany)
Otto Martwig (Germany)
Philip Meldon (Ireland) - disputed death details, not known to CWGC.
August Mobs (Germany) - said to have been killed in air raid.
Alberto Nahmias (Greece) - death circumstances disputed; his English article gives two different years of death in 1980s without source. His Greek wikipedia biography states he was arrested by the Germans in 1942 because of Jewish origins and further trace was lost, possibly because of being put to death, although also said to have emigrated post-war. Can someone find sources that settle this? The nearest named individual recorded from Greek Jews listed in the Testimony Pages of Yad Vashem is an Alberto Nachmias (sic), born in Greece, died at Auschwitz, age given as 42 but no birth or death date given. However out of the estimated 6M Jews killed in the Holocaust only 4.5M are known to Yad Vashem.
Slavko Pavletic (Croatia) - no death circumstance details given in text but has been categorised as a Croatian civilian killed in the war. In Croatian wikidia, he is stated with citation to have been executed following Communist seizure of power in Croatia with 'date of execution' stated unknown, though the infobox gives a precise date of 27 May 1945 and death place as Zagreb.
Jean Petit (footballer, born 1914) (Belgium) - His French wikipedia article indicates without citation or death location given that he was a doctor - probably civilian rather than military - who was killed in a bombardment preceding the Allied invasion of Normandy.
Kurts Plade (Latvia) - Repatriated to Germany as a Baltic German, his Latvian wikipedia article states he was 'killed' (no further detail) in February 1945 in Poznan, Poland. I note his death coincided with the Soviet siege of Poznan.
Bernardo Poli (Italy) - Italian wikipedia indicates he died in 'an unspecified war accident' serving as an airman. Only citation in English wikipedia does not indicate manner of his death.
Fyodor Rimsha (Russia)
~~Holger Salin (Finland) - No decisive date in most wikipedias. His Finnish wikipedia article gives 27 October 1943 but the Finnish language sources are subscription required.~~
Aristotel Samsuri (Albania) - Reportedly executed in German concentration camp in Greece as a Communist partisan between 1942/1944, but was claimed by the postwar Communist regime of Albania to have escaped and survived before proclaiming him a martyr in 1981.
Gennaro Santillo (Italy) - Categorised as Italian military personnel killed in the war but no indications of military service on Italian wikipedia. Would like to be more certain of his status (mil or civ) before adding him.
Harry Spencer (footballer) (New Zealand, previously played in England) - There are similarities with a New Zealand soldier known to the CWGC (see talk page of article). Can someone find confirmation they are the same man?
Erwin Stührk (Germany) - disputable death date, death place given in German war grave site not easy to ascertain as it only gives German form of name rather than its vernacular.
Ludwik Szabakiewicz (Poland) - disputable death details, particularly date
Willi Völker (Germany) - uncertainty about death location.
Karl Wahlmuller (Austria)
Heinz Warnken (Germany) - German wikipedia gives him as gefallen (fallen) in 1943 but no detail of precise death date or death place.
Willi Wigold (Germany) - date of death 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 their articles.Cloptonson (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: I checked Holger Salin. The newspaper article does not mention the war, and just notes that he died unexpectedly. The death notice posted in the newspaper just says he died in an accident. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I see his German wikipedia article states that after his last international match (1943) he "fell..in the Continuation War" [term given to Finland's hostilities with the Soviet Union over 1941-45 in concert with Germany] in '1943 or 1944'. I do wonder if he was serving in the Finnish Armed Forces though. Accidents as well as combat killed a number of players on the list.Cloptonson (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Juventus F.C. Youth Sector

I want to rewrite this article including the rosters for any youth team from the under-15s (I think including the other rosters would be ridicoulus). Are there any unnecessary rosters I want to include, can I include some lower teams? Would anyone help me? (Sorry if I talk too much about Juventus youth teams)

I don't think it's a good idea to be including lists of what are essentially non-notable children. Giant Snowman 19:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Many other articles do. From which under team do I start including? Isn't it necessary at all Dr Salvus 19:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 19:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, you haven't replied to the question asked. Dr Salvus 19:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

On a purely practical level, I have created a few of these and have found it to be a tedious exercise to keep the lists updated at the start of every season, even for your favourite clubs; Juventus probably do have a reliable web site, but I have come cross others where the link goes dead and/or the squad doesn't get updated regularly for some time, a problem that becomes worse the further down the age chain you go. It's true that most of the players will move up year on year so the U15s will become the next U16s etc, but you still have to go through each list particularly carefully, and so finding the few who have left or joined actually becomes more annoying than just typing out a whole list from scratch. But then if you do have a list in a reference, what's the harm in just having a ref to the squad, maybe have a list of the coaches for each team, who are often ex-pro players? It's not really adding much value as virtually all the players, even up to U19 level, will not be notable on Wikipedia until they move up to the U23s or on loan - and would then be in the squad list for that club's article. However I think listing U19s for their league and the UEFA Youth League is easy to find a source for, something that a wider range of readers may want to glance at if they are watching it on TV or whatever, and as you have pointed out, something which is displayed on most if not all articles for the pro club's academy / youth team articles. Below that, it becomes less relevant to readers and more time-consuming for editors with no real benefit to the encyclopaedia, being just a bunch of names for the star players of 8 years in the future, plus a lot who will drop out of football altogether as teenagers. Crowsus (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Is any of this mentioned in any reliable secondary sources? I could see maybe including the U19s, but anything below is not notable given the inevitable churn of players at that level. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Spike 'em (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

agreed. Giant Snowman 09:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel like, in general, youth sector / academy articles should focus a bit more on prose (the history, inception, maybe if it regularly impacts the first team roster...). For the squad lists, I would just add the ones that compete in notable competitions: so, either the UEFA Youth League for the under-19s, or for example in England the under-21s since they play in the EFL Trophy. Anything else seems excessive to me. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Are the various technical staffs necessary even for the under-8s. I don't believe they're very needed. Dr Salvus 11:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't even think they are necessary for the seniors, but that's just my opinion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd include only the first team, the reserve team and the highest youth team's staffs. The rest is trivial. Dr Salvus 12:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Northern Irish League tables

Someone help me understand this, as maybe there's something I missed. I'm looking at the (Northern) Irish league tables. Until 2003-2004 season there's a field shown before the points called "GR" which gets replaced with "GD" (goal difference) from 2003 on. GR seems to be goal average ie goals scored divided by goals conceded, a system used as the main tiebreaker in England until 1981, however it's news to me that this continued in Northern Ireland well into the millenia. Further in 1999–2000 Irish League the UEFA places are decided by goal difference, even though the mysterious GR is shown in the table. So unless I'm wrong and this has some significance which the table suggests it doesn't, we need to change these tables, no? Valenciano (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume "GR" stands for "goal ratio". – Pee Jay 00:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that the placings in the Premier Division in 1999-2000 are correct (and they seem to be) then clearly goal difference was the determining factor, because the teams in 2nd, 3rd and 4th are ranked in descending order of goal difference but not of "GR"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus - loan players and 'end of season'

As the regular season for most UK/European clubs comes to an end over the coming weeks, I just wanted to seek clarification and possibly a consensus on loan players who are loaned to clubs until "the end of the season" - at what point is it appropriate to update their parent club, loan club and player pages.

The regular annual UK football season at least in terms of player contracts runs from 1 July until 30 June - every club season page on Wiki covers this period.

However, there seems to be some confusion over whether loan players who are loaned until the end of the season are under contract with their loan clubs until 30 June. In reality, loan players 'return' to their parent clubs after the last game of the loaning club's season. For the club I support, a couple of loan players said their goodbyes publicly on social media after the had played their last game for the club.

Again there appears to be confusion over this - I've seen some editors returning loan players to parent clubs, but later having these updates undone by other editors as "the season runs until 30 June". Conversely, I've seen these edits left alone without bother.

Common sense needs to prevail here. Unless someone has a source that confirms loan contracts run until 30 June, for Wikipedia purposes they should run until their final game (as in reality).

With this in mind, what is the current consensus?

Should we update parent clubs/loan clubs and players pages to reinstate loan players at their parent clubs after they have played their final loan game? FilthyDon (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

FilthyDon, no if a player is under contract until 30June, it should be updated starting from 1 July. Dr Salvus 05:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we actually know that loan players are officially loaned until 30 June? Appreciate that their contract with their current club runs till 30 June, but has anyone ever seen confirmation that loaned players are technically/officially loaned right through to 30 June? What would be the point of that? And even if they are, is it really helpful/useful to readers to insist on showing a player as still on loan to another club anything up to seven weeks after that club played their last game of the season? To my mind it just seems like pedantry for the sake of it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, the loaned player signs a loan extension during that period between the last game they played and between 30 June. In some cases there might also be non-domestic competitions during that period. --SuperJew (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Domestic loans between English clubs expire as soon as the loan club has played its last fixture. See EFL website, which defines "Season" as the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match and, for each Club, ending immediately after the completion of the Club’s final fixture of the League Competition or, if the Club is participating in the Play-Offs, the final Play-Off match for that Club, and EFL Rule 55, which says loans are for a half "Season" or a full "Season", as defined above, and particularly 55.1.4, which clarifies that if the loan club's "Season" ends before that of the parent club, the player can't play for the parent club once he returns. That's the EFL, but the PL rules are the same. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

[www.figc.it/media/55326/tit3_noif_art_da47a70_23-06-2017__________20-08-2018.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjnqYX2_9H3AhWMMewKHbhzAPIQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2unwECGuw3KsbvdazTpMlC Here], FIGC say a season starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the following year. Dr Salvus 08:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

For English players I do what Struway hints - update to remove the loan as soon as the final game of the season has happened. Giant Snowman 10:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

For English domestic players, changing them now is correct. That looks like it isn't the case for most other countries though. Either way, it doesn't make a massive difference and people shouldn't be wasting time edit warring over it (as often seems to happen). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Have changed my idea, it doesn't make sense much keeping that the borrowing team after when done with the season. Maybe, a player can arleady start training with the team who'd previously loaned. Dr Salvus 11:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Juventus also use the wording "until the end of the season" (see Alvaro Morata). I'd also interpret that as meaning "until the club's last game". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The end of the season, as Struway2 pointed out in the green text, has now applied to 61 out of 72 EFL clubs so effectively most loan players have had their seasons finished. Many of those players are loaned from Premier League clubs who have not yet completed their season so these articles should not be updated until at least after that date of the end of season is gone. These edits reflects on the fact that both Swansea's and Peterborough's seasons are both done but in the case of, e.g. Freddie Woodman, his season with Bournemouth is completed but Newcastle's isn't yet so the current version should reflect that. Strangely Swansea City A.F.C. has their loan dates ending 31 May 2022, not sure why though. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

like contracts, loans generally end on 30 june officially. they dont end the second a last game is played as seen when teams qualify for the play offs.Muur (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

that is literally contradicted by the source Struway has helpfully quoted above. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Muur: they dont end the second a last game is played - Struway has quoted directly from the EFL rule book above confirming that they do -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Not to have a go at anyone but it's a human foible to ignore information that contradicts their existing viewpoint. But if we could gather a consensus NOT to revert edits putting a player back to their parent club if the loanee club has played their final game of the season then that would be great.--Echetus Xe 12:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

footballwebpages.co.uk

This website shows recent player appearance data for the English non-League and is very useful. I've just been informed by an IP editor though that the individual appearance lists non-playing appearances on the bench in addition to playing appearances. The playing appearances only are displayed on the club stats page. So one to watch out for. Echetus Xe 11:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

so then how do we differentiate on the individual appearances without trawling through the club stats? Giant Snowman 11:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Annoyingly I think trawling will be required. I think the most efficient way would be to check the individual page v the squad page, and if there is a discrepancy then check the cup appearances and see if they were an unused substitute for any of those; any remaining difference will be from non-playing substitute appearances in the league. So if the individual page shows 50 appearances and the squad page shows 48, and you check and see that out of 5 cup appearances they were an unused substitute for 1 cup game then that shows they made 48 total appearances, 43 league + 5 cup.--Echetus Xe 16:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

theyre forced to number 1-11 for starting players, so all you gotta do is check if they came on a sub when theyre number 12 or higher. every team sheet in those leagues is 1-11, so you could play right back one week and be nunber 2 then play left back a week later and be number 3 then be on the bench and be number 16. the player on your list only started one game and was on the bench the other 5.Muur (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

That's useful, but what about when the player comes on as a sub? – Pee Jay 09:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

thats why i said you check sub games manually. less work than checking every single match.Muur (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah that's a good time saving tip. Never would have thought of that.--Echetus Xe 12:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Daniele De Rossi

Hi Everyone! May I ask why De Rossi's Argentinian championship victory continues to be included in his palmares? Neither FA neither Boca Junior gives the footballer the title. Because here we are basing it on football sites and newspapers, which I remember are not reliable sources in this case. Thank you for your reply. --LittleWhites (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

He played five league games for Boca; why shouldn't the title be awarded? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

pl back in teh day had a ten game minimum and i think its at 5 right now, does this league have a minimum?Muur (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nehme1499: Maybe because he left in January and the championship ended in May/June? Since when are titles awarded to players who changed teams or retired earlier? --LittleWhites (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@LittleWhites: - I don't know about the rules in other countries, but in England as long as a player played the required minimum number of games for the champion team, he gets a medal, even if he left the club before the end of the season. So if Dave Example plays ten games for Example United between August and December, then leaves in January to join Example Town, he would get a medal if United win the league, even though he left the club four months earlier. That's certainly how it works in England, as I say I don't know what the rules are elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk)

Olli Harder

Seany91 has been removing some content from Olli Harder claiming it violates WP:SOAP e.g. [9]. I don't agree and have started a talkpage discussion at Talk:Olli Harder, would be good to get the views of others there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Which match minute?

Hello

If a match report says "1-0 Wayne Rooney 58.". Would you write that Wayne Rooney made it 1-0 in the 58th minute or in the 59th minute? Earlier I would have written that he scored in the 58th minute. But I now realise that is probably completely wrong. In fact, he scored the goal in the 59th minute (after 58 minutes played). I am probably the only one who have not thought about this before...

Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a specific instance to which you are referring with a source? Or are you asking if the goal was scored at exactly 58:00? Just trying to clarify. Jay eyem (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If the goal was scored at 57:59 or 58:00, I'd write 58 (beacuse the first minute goes from 00:01 to 01:00). If scored at 58:01, I'd write 59. Dr Salvus 22:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

58:00 is the 59th minute. See this, for example (The first minute is 0:00 – 0:59.) Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Always match the report of cause. So 58th minute. Or have you ever seen a zero in the report? -Koppapa (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. If the goal says "58", it was scored sometime between 57:00 and 57:59. If it happened after the clock ticked to 58:00, it would be reported as happening in the 59th minute. Fairly simple stuff, I think. – Pee Jay 11:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The first millennium went from 1 AD to 1000 because no year zero existed. The same goes for games, when one starts it could be 00:00:00:00:00:00:01 but never 00:00. Once there was no stoppage time, so a goal scored at 90:00, would've been reported at the 91st minute in a league match? Dr Salvus 11:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In those days, it probably wouldn't have been reported at all. The idea of recording exact timings of match events is a relatively new phenomenon. – Pee Jay 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

TBH in those days you would probably find different timings reported for the same goal in different sources, because it relied on individual reporters checking their own watches..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Why only in those days? Also today you'll find differences between sources :) --SuperJew (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@SuperJew: you're probably right, although I did wonder if they had access to some sort of official Opta clock or something these days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly in the Premier League, timings are handled by Opta. Any game that's televised nowadays though, you can find some reliable record of the timing of any match event. – Pee Jay 14:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Freestyle football

A recent deletion request (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashraful Islam Jhohan) has drawn my attention to Freestyle football. I'm aware that (despite the hyperbolic claims in the article) freestyle is a hyper-niche variant of minimal interest (the page averages around 50 views a day, about 1⁄6 those of Korfball), but even so this article is truly terrible in terms of both prose style and sourcing, if anyone fancies a stab at cleaning it up. (I do not volunteer to do ths myself; as far as I'm concerned 'freestyle' is just a fancy word for 'keepy-uppy'.) ‑ Iridescent 03:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Freestyle football is basically the ball discipline from rhythmic gymnastics, except it uses a football instead of a rubber ball. – Pee Jay 16:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Host selection for the 2020–25 UEFA Champions League Finals

As multiple relocation happened in these six Finals, I don't think moving the host selection is currently suitable. I'd suggest that moving the host selection back to the original article.
FYI, Istanbul 2020→21→23, Munich 2022→23→25, 2021 Saint Petersburg→Istanbul→Porto, 2022 Munich→Saint Petersburg→Paris. KyleRGiggs (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the articles should mention what happened regarding the changes in hosting. – Pee Jay 20:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is a must KyleRGiggs (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

777 partners

We should probably have an article on 777 partners, the US investment firm which now owns Genoa C.F.C., Standard Liège and (most recently) Red Star F.C. - if anyone feels like drafting one? Gricehead (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If I have time, I'll create this. Dr Salvus 12:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Samuel Iling-Junior

Do I write Iling-Junior or Iling Jr. in the prose and in the footballboxes? Dr Salvus 21:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Juventus, Chelsea and UEFA all use "Iling-Junior", not "Iling Jr." Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't be doing something just beacuse someone else has done the same. Iling-Junior is not needed (maybe I could understand only in the title). No one is so stupid to not know Junior can be expressed with Jr. Dr Salvus 21:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Junior doesn't automatically equal Jr., just so we're clear and not stupid. Seasider53 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

His surname is officially "Illing-Junior" (hyphenated), so we should just treat is as such. The fact that part of his surname happens to have "Junior" does not imply that we should use "Jr." Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

if it is a hyphenated name it clearly is a proper part of his name. A basic understanding of English is necessary to contribute on en.wiki Spike 'em (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The full word "Junior" is literally part of his actual legal name, so obviously we are not going to compress it to "Jr", that would be insane. I would not expect to see Trevor Senior referred to in prose as "Trevor Sr." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to We shouldn't be doing something just beacuse someone else has done the same, that is exactly what we should be doing. We should refer to subjects by their common name i.e. the one that reliable sources use. We shouldn't decide to change the spelling/formatting/whatever of a subject's name just because we like it better...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spike 'em it won't be the best possible, but my understanding of English is good enough to edit here (and I edit and read without using Google Translate). Dr Salvus 08:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

From this very article : before moving to Chelsea in 2020 to Juventus and Iling-Junior is a left-footed offensive winger, who can play in both sides. Spike 'em (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And would these mistakes mean I have no understanding of English? This is new... Dr Salvus 08:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said you had no understanding, but you seem to struggle with basic grammar. Spike 'em (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Spike 'em, I know that's a problem, you don't know how much I work to improve. Regarding to that sentence, I was distracted. Unfortunaltey, I sometimes confuse some words or believe words that exist in Italian exist in English as well (ananas-> pineapple for example). I apologise for that. Dr Salvus 08:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

......but there's no need to add anytime "Junior" in the prose. We write Iling-Junior the first time and then we call him just "Iling" as I've done in this change (even though I've seen many Juventus U19 matches at TV and the commentators often called him "Iling-Junior"). Dr Salvus 16:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The change is incorrect. His surname is "Illing-Junior", not "Illing", or "Illing Jr.", or any other variation. It's akin to calling Dominic Calvert-Lewin just "Calvert". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've just corrected. Dr Salvus 16:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Does this also mean the redirect Samuel Iling Jr. or the draft I had created in January 2021 (when I was unaware of WP:NFOOTY) are wrong and should be deleted? Dr Salvus 22:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To conclude: In Italy, I could find no sources talking about the place he was born, can you try to find one in an English site I may not have the access? Dr Salvus 22:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the redirect and draft are wrong. His name is Iling-Junior. The "Junior" in this case does not operate in the same way as in Robert Downey Jr.'s name. I don't know Samuel Iling-Junior's parents' names, but I'm pretty sure he's not the son of Samuel Iling Senior... – Pee Jay 00:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Redirects for what could be common incorrectly spelled search terms are fine. It's like how Christiano Ronaldo with an h is a redirect to the proper page. It shouldn't be linked under that spelling elsewhere, but a redirect for a potential search term I see no issue with RedPatch (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Álvaro Vázquez

This article has caused some confusion: on the article it says he still plays for Kerala Blasters however the club article does not include him. I then checked the FC Goa page and he's currently on there but the source given does not include him on the squad page. It does appear on Google News that he has agreed terms (https://www.90min.com/posts/isl-alvaro-vazquez-reportedly-agrees-terms-to-move-to-fc-goa-from-kerala-blasters) which states that the Kerala Blasters contract ends on 31 May 2022. That makes sense as to why the FC Goa website does not include him yet. So I have changed the article to reflect that hopefully to avoid more confusion on that article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If he's agreed terms with Goa, shouldn't there be some mention of that in his article? – Pee Jay 16:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree re your response so I have included that in the article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Jordi Amat

I'm not sure how many users actually have this linked page on their watchlists: a large cluster of IP addresses have repetitively changed Amat's height by one centimetre from what the archive source says to 1.85m. This is a case of that editing behaviour being tedious at this point since that has been going on for many weeks now. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan, I l've requested a protection at RPP. Dr Salvus 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

How different do article names need to be?

So there are these two players: Mohamed Omar (soccer) and Mohamed Omar (footballer). Their pages obviously require further disambiguation as recent consensus has been that soccer/footballer are considered to be the same and they have the exact same spelling. However, I also noticed there are also Mohammad Omar (footballer) and Muhammad Omar (footballer), with different spelling variations of the first name. Are those considered different enough to be fine as are, or should the four all be jointly further disambiguated? All four are listed at the Mohamed Omar disambiguation page. (If they do need further disambiguation, I'll do it through a RM, rather than a bold move) RedPatch (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree that they should be disambiguated further due to extremely similar spelling variants as they might be considered the same name, the same way as Jonathan, Johnathan, Jonathon etc.. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Mohamed Omar (footballer) is spelt with two m's in the lede anyway! Probably just need to put what year they were born and then nationality in the disambiguation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Technically, all their names are the same if written in Arabic. I would definitely further disambiguate by year. This is what I've done at Yusuf Muhammad (disambiguation), for example. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

So as you guys mentioned Mohamed Omar (footballer) should probably be moved to Mohammed, as noted that the lede spells it with 2 Ms and his club team also spelled it with two Ms here. RedPatch (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I created a Requested Move discussion here. Presented two options: Nationality and birth year. RedPatch (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Need help?

Hi how are you guys? Please help me the name of Goalscorers, match officials, and match report of 2022 CAFA U-16 Championship. Thanks. MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

If that information is so hard to come by, perhaps this tournament isn’t sufficiently notable for an article… – Pee Jay 11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not notable. PROD submitted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Results and Fixtures - Scotland and Peru national football teams

Hello everyone. Following the model at Scotland national football team and suggestions by GA/FA reviewers, the Peru national football team article does not include a "results and fixtures" list. Off the top of my head, I recall some reasons for this being that it made the article bulky, focused excessively on recent and future events, relied on dubious sources, and often was manipulated by users to display favorable results (altering date ranges to filter bad results). Since at the time of the FA reviews Peru was on a losing streak, see the first decade at Peru national football team results (2000–2019), nobody had any issues with altogether removing the results (matching with the design of the Scotland article). However, since Peru is now doing "better" a user wants to add the results list on the page ([10]). I am tired of the discussion, especially as the user is now pushing buttons ("I understand that you've been editing this page for fifteen years therefore have a particular interest in it" [11]). My understanding is that their main argument is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams should be enforced on all articles as the standard. I always understood that page as just a proposal to help articles develop. The Scotland and Peru articles have kept a stable model for over a decade. I wanted to bring this up for discussion here to get more input from other FOOTY members. Thanks.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I should add that Peru has also 3 additional records pages: Peru national football team records and statistics, Peru national football team results (2000–2019), and Peru national football team results (2020–present). So the results and fixtures do appear on the site, just requiring one or two more clicks. Just searching on Google also brings up the results quickly.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, Scotland being the joint-oldest national football team in the world, they have a long fixtures record starting with Scotland national football team results (1872–1914).--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 15:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't add the recent results (matches played in the last 12 months) to national team articles. If WP:RECENTISM is a concern, then the current squad and recent call-ups section should also be removed. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for bringing this discussion here. As I mentioned in our previous chat, Fixtures and Results never came up in either of their FA reviews, the section was removed from the Peruvian page in 2009 but it was in table format back then rather than its current template. I have absolutely no interest in how the Peruvian team is doing, only that the national team articles are somewhat consistent, as demonstrated by my editing history. I believe that Fixtures and Results is a good section and should be included on the main page with the parameters that are set out on the template. The rest of my argument is available here! Felixsv7 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If GA/FA reviewers feel a section including recent results should not be included then maybe we should be rethinking the template. At the end of the day, we want as many of these articles to be featured articles as possible and if this is only going to prove a stumbling block it might be better not to be included. A good article will contain a history section which will outline recent results anyway even if it doesn't go in depth and readers can be pointed to results articles if they want more detail. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I had a look through the GA/FA reviews of both the Scottish and Peruvian national football team pages (the Peruvian page has four separate reviews) and neither mention the inclusion or exclusion of a Results and Fixtures section. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, Belgium is a Featured Article and had a similar discussion a few years ago before deciding to reimplement the Results and Fixtures section. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is interesting. I had a quick look back at the edit history and at the time of those reviews neither article had a results/fixtures section so if the reviewers never even thought about why the section was missing, it can't be that important. It also implies that it's not needed as, if it was, the reviewers would have brought it up in their suggestions for improvement. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The Peruvian page used to have a version of Results and Fixtures (back in 2009) and Scotland had an even more strange one (in 2007) but I wouldn't recommend a reversion to either format. I'd look at the Belgium page to suggest desire for the section but, in the end, if we feel that the template isn't reflective of what the ideal national team page looks like, let's amend it (though I am personally a fan!) Felixsv7 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I know some articles do include the last 2/3 years of results (though isn't that a WP:RECENTISM issue?), but I think it is much tidier if you include the match results in separate articles for each decade unless a team didn't play much then you could make it 20-30 years. That's my 2p and it avoids cluttering the article which is already full of tables and templates for squads and tournament results. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any national team page features results from over a year ago in their Results and Fixtures section. If they do they certainly shouldn't! Felixsv7 (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including all results from the current qualifying cycle, even if some may have happened more than 12 months ago. – Pee Jay 12:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@The C of E: See my comment above re RECENTISM. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

By the way, how exactly is the "as well as any future matches that have been scheduled" not a problem with future predictions? I should also add that, while the past matches have "reports" that can at least serve for some verification (albeit that is also problematic for FA standards), the "future matches" do not have any reliable sources to support them. There's even an ongoing situation between Chile and Ecuador that may affect Peru's qualification ([12]), so the "future match" being listed in the fixtures is clearly unreliable information. IMO, I reiterate that Wikipedia is not Google or a sports journal, so we should not display these lists in the national team encyclopedic articles...and we specially should not speculate about the future.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The future matches shouldn't be unverifiable. They should either be the result of a draw by FIFA or their confederation, or they will have been announced by their football association (a friendly). Felixsv7 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't prevent us from talking about future events, provided that they are properly verifiable. – Pee Jay 16:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:Crystal says to avoid speculation, but says that verifiable future events can be mentioned if they are notable enough that they would be mentioned if they happened in the past. This seems to cover confirmed future fixtures in my view. Spike 'em (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, the fixtures are scheduled, and it would actually be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL not to list them, as it would imply an assumption that those games wouldn't be played. – Pee Jay 18:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. Let's take a peek at the evidence available. So, after I made this comment, Felix quickly edited the Peru article to add sources for the upcoming matches ([13]). Fantastic. But, let's take a look at other articles and see what's up. Mexico national football team has 11 unreferenced future matches ([14]), Ecuador national football team has 9 unreferenced future matches ([15]), Malaysia national football team has 5 unreferenced future matches ([16]). And the list goes on. What does this indicate? I see placing undue burden or expectations on editors to keep up the verifiability of future matches, hindering the stability and source quality of the articles. All for what exactly? How is adding these lists of any encyclopedic value? How are we not turning these articles now into databases?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 01:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the articles contain much more than just fixture lists, or at least they should. If the fixture lists were the only content in those pages, I would agree that it is ridiculous to keep such an article, but many of them also have info on the teams' history, their kits, their home stadiums, etc. What exactly is the problem with adding fixtures as long as they're properly sourced? – Pee Jay 08:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I did quickly edit it - because the information was easy to come by. And adding the fixtures and results for a football team onto said football team's page cannot reasonably be considered an indiscriminate collection of information. Felixsv7 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't have "recent results" sections in club articles, so why are they in national team articles? It's a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Having the current roster and recent call-ups is also RECENTISM. Should that section also be deleted? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
No. We also have current squads in the club articles. Why should the national team articles be inconsistent with club articles? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
They shouldn't, both the recent results and recent call-ups should be kept as neither violate RECENTISM. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
We have different templates for the national teams and clubs - the former playing much less frequently - creating differences. Also, none of the bulleted descriptions of Recentism apply to the Results section. Felixsv7 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
That is circular logic. The template is different, so the article should be different. I'm saying that the template is wrong. There is no difference between listing the last umpteen results for a national team and the last umpteen results for a club team. Nobody ever said when the article went through peer review, FAC or FAR that "this article is lacking the most recent results of the team". In fact, at peer review one of the suggestions was to remove the recent results section (point 11). WP:RECENTISM says "Long passages in an athlete's or an actor's biography might be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy" - you propose to add over 12,000 bytes of data about recent events (over 1/10th of its total length), which skews it towards those recent events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The current framework for recent results and fixtures didn't exist when the article went through review fifteen years ago, instead they suggested removing a table (with their final point).

The national team page is neither an athlete nor an actor so that wouldn't apply. The only mention of a situation like this on the Recentism page is in the Talk page discussing live scoring - which I'll concede is pretty damn recent. Felixsv7 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we maybe just have Most Recent Match and Next Match which would limit the entries to 2? Crowsus (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No, no, no. That is even worse. I also want to address a point made above - oh, the templates are different because national teams are "playing much less frequently". The typical college football team in America only plays 12 to 15 games in a year (e.g. the national champion Georgia played 15, winning 14, in their 2021 season). The NFL regular season has 17 games in it. It's not unusual for national teams to play at least as many games as this in a year, especially on the women's side. The England men's team team played 19 games in 2021, for example. Yet if you look at any major American football team (college or NFL), you will not get a list of "recent results", e.g. 1, e.g. 2 (both good articles). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582's perspective makes a lot of sense to me. I also would like to further add that these "results and fixtures" are not and will never be highlighted in the introduction. What are we to write about it? "In the past twelve months, Scotland has won seven games, lost three, and tied four, with seven scheduled upcoming matches." And this has to be updated after every match or "confirmed" upcoming match? Not even in the history section do we write about every single match the team has played...because not all matches are relevant. Which leads me to the question no one has yet answered: Why are the past 12 months of matches relevant for the article? Moreover, what makes 12 months more relevant than 6 or 24 months? What makes months a more accurate marker than manager (as in, wouldn't it make more sense to list all matches under the current manager)? --MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 04:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be in the lead. Do we have to describe the 23 called-up players, or the recent call-ups? The latter is also subject to a 12-month timeframe. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a recent call-ups list either. The "current squad" list is always cited. The "recent call-ups" is uncited, which runs contrary to FA standards. Regardless, that is not a justification to support 12 months of "recent results" or why months are even a justifiable marker. It's simply using the same circular logic that Jmorrison230582 highlighted above.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we need an RfC to determine whether or not to include results on national team pages then. I'd obviously support for the reasons listed but would be great to provide further clarity and conformity to the template! (I'd also be in favour of citing the recent call-ups section). A year is a justifiable marker - easily quantifiable. Felixsv7 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Career highlights?

May I suggest that we add a "career highlights" section for very good or famous footballers? I have seen it on Jonny Wilkinson's wikipedia page and think it is a good idea. Please comment your opinion on this proposal. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a dreadful idea. Who's opinion is something a "highlight"? I have no idea why the rugby project haven't been on that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, fails WP:NPOV. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

We could make a decision on what is a highlight- eg debuts, hat tricks, trophies, and make a list on what we can include. Also, I've only seen it on one article so I'm not sure whether it's a regular thing. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is quite a regular thing on WP:AFL. Usually highlights are end of season awards (ones which are notable enough to have a wikipage), leading goalkickers, captaincies, and premierships. Pretty much all the things we have navboxes for. --SuperJew (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of that is either statcruft, or suitable for an awards section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the original question - on WP:AFL at least it is part of the infobox, not a separate section. I agree in prose it is pretty much the awards section if seaprate at all. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but if implemented like on the Wilkinson article that would be a terrible idea and would open the floodgates for all sorts of statcruft and POV pushing. The list on the Wilkinson article contains things like "Wales deny England a Grand Slam at Wembley" - how is that a highlight of Wilkinson's career? And other matches don't even attempt to present an explanation of why they would be considered highlights of his career. You suggest "debuts, hat tricks, trophies" as examples of what could be included in a footballer's list - well, his debut should be covered in the prose, trophies would already be covered in the honours section, and as for hat-tricks, in many cases a player will have scored quite a lot of these - Cristiano Ronaldo has scored 60, for example, and to list them all would be daft. Others may disagree but I'm afraid it's a massive no from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, just no per reasons above. On top of that, the whole section is unsourced. Kante4 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

For example:

Anon Ymous

January 2018-Anon Ymous makes his first-team debut for example United, coming on as a 62nd minute substitute for Unkn Own.

June 2018-Anon Ymous scored his first goal.

September 2018-Anon Ymous scored his first hat trick.

December 2018-Anon Ymous scores a brace in the example derby, including a memorable bicycle kick in the 92nd minute.

February 2019-Anon Ymous makes his England debut.

May 2019-Anon Ymous wins the first trophy of his career, scoring the winning goal in the final of the FA cup.

June 2019-Anon Ymous wins his first individual accolade, winning the 2019 Primer Leek golden boot.

July 2019-Anon Ymous is called up for the 2019 FIFA world cup squad (pretend that that is a thing)

July 2019-Anon Ymous makes his first world cup appearance, scoring his first goal in a 6-1 thrashing of Panama.

July 2019-Anon Ymous is sent off in the quarter finals of the world cup, the first red card of his career.

July 2019-Anon Ymous wins the best young player award at the world cup.

December 2019-Anon Ymous becomes the youngest player to score 50 primer leek goals, aged only 21.

July 2020-Anon Ymous wins the PFA player's player of the year and the primer leek golden boot.

August 2020-Anon Ymous controversially signs for example United's local rivals, example city, for a british record £110 million.

The key word is "First".

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

For most players this will almost mirror their career sections, which are usually just a list of statements saying On the nth of sometember he did a good thing. The prose career section should already be a summary of a career, with really momentous things appearing in the lead. Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned, every one of those items should be written within the prose of a "career" section. Having it as a table or bullet point list would either duplicate the prose (pointless) or be yet another lazy example of substituting a table/list for properly written prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Reads like a blog and as said, everything is covered in the prose, so simply no. And five editors are against it, so let's stop it. Kante4 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with the two previous commenters, that list is just a badly written career section. – Elisson • T • C • 09:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (x2) No from me too; at the F1 project 'career highlights' is often used when a driver has a short, not very successful F1 career, in order to include wins or podium finishes in other major categories (Le Mans or other sportscar racing for example). Can't see that this could be adapted to work here and it would lead to the sort of POV pushing seen in 'honours' from time to time... only likely more so. Eagleash (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

sorry but this is a terrible idea. Giant Snowman 09:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the not in favour of this idea group. RedPatch (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Am I too late to join the this is a really bad idea team? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Basically what this proposal is, is WP:PROSELINE for a unspecified group of events. I'm going to take a look at the rugby stuff as it's not really suitable there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. If you think it’s a bad idea, you also might want to get it off Jonny Wilkinson#career highlights’s page. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Has not much to do with this discussion but it's gone already. Kante4 (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I think I'm going blind. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Jake Daniels

Might we be proactive and semi-protect his article before the comedians start rolling in? There's already been one. Seasider53 (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I was going to request it at WP:RPP, but it seems Joseph2302 has beaten me to it! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Just as well, some random nonsense was added in just now before it was reverted. I don't see any connection between that and the footballer. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User:DJdjPollard15 and his many sockpuppets

Hi guys, just wanted to remind you all of this particular sockmaster. He's pretty tenacious when it comes to evading his original block, but fortunately for us, he's pretty easily identifiable. He seems to use the exact same set of edit summaries every single time ("Added some new information" or "Added a new image", the former being especially ironic when he's actually deleting content!), and his usernames follow a fairly common pattern. I raise this here because his targets are usually football-related, although he does stray into pop music and reality TV every once in a while. Per WP:BANREVERT, we should be reverting this person's contributions on sight, regardless of how constructive they seem. If their contributions are actually any good, feel free to re-add them, but they should definitely be reverted first. Also, if you see any new sockpuppets like this, please report them at WP:SPI, logging them under the username of the original sockmaster, DJdjPollard15. Cheers. – Pee Jay 14:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reported the recent socks to the meta stewards for global locks, in line with the other sock accounts used by the master. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Iggy. I know you've been quite vigilant with this particular sockmaster. I just wanted to make sure others were aware so we don't end up with any of his edits slipping through the net. – Pee Jay 16:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Marley Aké

Juventus site consider him (with no point) a first-team player (for example you can buy his shirt while you can't buy Miretti's). Should the article have the number he uses with the first team? Dr Salvus 12:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

No comment on that, but is it really necessary to include he caught and recovered from covid in his personal life section? Almost the entire world has had or will have it at some point. If he had missed a critical match or something with it in his career section, I'd say maybe, but to create a personal life section to just write he got covid once seems unnecessary. RedPatch (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch: Almost any other illness wouldn't be reported by name if at all. --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I say we can start getting rid of COVID mentions for all players, unless it had a noteable impact. And yes, I reckon we can start listing Ake with the senior team number.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

imbed code missing?

Not sure how it works, but I went to add the table too 1998–99 Willem II season season article, however the whole page got added from 1998–99 Eredivisie, anyone able to fix that? I don't know how. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Done. I added a "section=" parameter to the Eredivisie league table. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I had a look at what you did, but knowing me, I will forget how to do that. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Position per round

Me again. May I suggest that every major league (or at least the top five in Europe) has a position per round table on their page? It is absolutely driving me nuts that the Premier League and Bundesliga pages do not. I am currently making a Premier League one in my sandbox, so if somebody could make a Bundesliga one? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say the opposite- we shouldn't have them for any leagues, as it's completely arbitrary and made up. For most of the Premier League season, teams have played different numbers of matches e.g. at Christmas 2021, teams had played between 15 and 18 matches [17]. In those circumstances, how is a position by round even done? It seems like we'd have to make up a calculation for it (to work out how many points everyone had after they'd played exactly X games), which is original research, since this isn't published anywhere else. Unless a league has fixed match dates where everyone plays on the same dates, then a positions by round is completely useless OR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I found that very annoying-some matchdays were different, matches had to be played at different times due to the covid in december, etc. Thanks for telling me that so I don't have to waste my time doing any more. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, such tables should be avoided. It's entirely possible that you could have a scenario where team X were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, team Y were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, and team Z were in 6th place when they had played 10 games, and how would that be represented? Better to just avoid altogether -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There has never been consensus to add to PL articles: see the many individual seasonal articles. I would object to any addition of such a table. Spike 'em (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there is currently a table lurking on the recently played WSL season, i.e. here. The table immediately after that is worse; if you have a look at the columns with the W, D and L filling them up, you will see that the wins and losses are imbalanced: column 13 for example shows only two wins but 7 losses, which is more than 50% of the number of teams who participated.

I'm not a huge fan of positions by round tables in this format and as what Joseph2302 says, that would not be useful. And just to add to the complexity of the positions by round, I found a website which shows what position teams were positioned round by round but, from e.g. the scorelines for round 18, the table after the set of results show the standings of everyone playing the first 18 rounds, barring Aston Villa and Burnley who are on 17 played. If Villa win, they would go up to 9th or 8th based on the results for this Thursday's and the rounds before that. It's pretty much unrealistic statistics there, we shouldn't really use these tables due to the amount of rearranged fixtures seasons have. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Today is really not going well for me on this talk page. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not your fault. Maybe you were told "this is the way it's always been done" and just gone along with it in hopes of a quiet life, like I have, only to find someone's just shoehorning it in because they think it's a good idea. Seasider53 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sort of. I saw it on a few league pages and always thought it was a good idea (for example, to show Salernitana's great escape-they were bottom for about 2 thirds but are now outside of the relegation zone) with things like that shown very well in a graph. I just didn't realise how difficult the logistics were.

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It is an idea that has been proposed before but the current consensus is not to have these on major league pages. Although it is just as hard removing them in my experience! It might just be best to leave it as it is for now. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The only way it could work in a completely logical and OR-free way is if each data point (for want of a better term) was a fixed date rather than a "round", because the position of each team as at a given date is an incontrovertible fact. So you could do the positions as at the end of each Sunday between August and May, say. But then people would probably try and argue that games on Monday should be treated as if they occurred on the Sunday or something (life was so much easier when everyone just played at 3pm on Saturday!). So again, probably just easier to avoid altogether......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Stat-cruft and usually OR. I have no idea why they continue to be a thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

Someone else want to look at the article, I really don't like the edits that Mwiqdoh is doing, I don't like the repeated linking to derby articles, (WP:OVERLINK)! I certainly don't like the (d) next to the score line which pops it out of alignment, I hate score-lines being linked up which messes with my voice reader for some bizarre reason. The scoreline won't be read out and it reads the link which is bizarre! :/ Govvy (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, no need for a (d) for derbies, and we don't need to link to every derby match in the fixtures/results lists. I have reverted and asked them to discuss here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree for consistency: we don't have any links to London derbies to 2021–22 Arsenal F.C. season for example. And I have never seen the (d) next to results before. Why would Mwiqdoh want to mess around with your current season's article? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I know! Why would he do such a thing? Mwiqdoh (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

jeez, Mwiqdoh Think you can stop edit-warring with everyone on the Spurs page, and to be honest, I don't really see a need to add rivalry links on the premier league round numbers. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then we can leave it as is, no need to remove even more stuff like on the round numbers... Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

And I don't see the need to list the clubs players join weeks after they were released by the previous club, but hey-ho, the guidelines/policies of football-season article seem to have long since fallen by the wayside. Seasider53 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The "Results by matchday" section has a link for the derbies aswell which should not be there and i removed it now. Complete overkill/overlink and just made a mess of that section(s). Kante4 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kante4: So how come we can include every away stadium link, but we can list 10 derbies that are legitimate rivalries? Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Season articles have a huge amount of links in them, really need to be clever what to link too, and not to overlink! Even players are overlink'ed on every season article. Rivalries can be talked about in prose and linked to in prose in the first instance, but no saturated all over the same article. Govvy (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

For me the links can be removed in the section. And the link to a derby can be piped during the rounds how it is displayed. Kante4 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:1998–99 in Dutch football

I created a quick template for that season, might need to be fixed up better. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already an existing article so I don't think we need a new one, but it is a complete and utter car crash. I'm happy to help with it.

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Car crash?? Govvy (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe thats a bit too much, but it does need a bit of improvement (sorry). As I said, I'm happy to help.

Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said it was only done in a short period in order to add to 1998–99 Willem II season (and a few other season pages), which was proposed for deletion. :/ Govvy (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant that the existing article is a bit of a mess. Sorry for any misunderstanding it may have caused.Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about Catalonia national football team and related pages

User:The Chumbo One just made a bunch of significant edits, undiscussed changes, and page moves related to the Catalonia national football team. The only edit I made was here reverting major undiscussed changes two weeks ago, but I am getting accused of making ideological changes. I am not sure what the consensus is for these pages but I thought it was important that the project was aware of these to make sure they were addressed properly. Jay eyem (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Football Squad of Catalonia" is a made up machine translation of the Spanish name, and is no way consistent with any other football/sports team naming system. Personally, I think Catalonia football team (without the national) is most sensible, but either way, move requests like these should be done via WP:RM, not unilaterally. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Palestine version includes "national" in the article title and so does the other related articles. The Chumbo One has moved these pages without a discussion so these pages should be returned whence they came to solve this problem. I can't think of any other teams which are in the same type as Palestine and Basque Country national football team as well as the team records they faced in the table lower down but some of those links have "national" included in those titles. So my guess is that national should be included for Catalonia as well. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the user in question brought the same thing up here two weeks ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 153#Catalonia is not a national team. Either way, seems like they're here to push a POV, and not here to collaborate. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Palestine is part of FIFA, Catalonia isn't; the two situations are not comparable. If anything, we should be looking at CONIFA members, such as Kurdistan and Padania. Dropping "national" seems like a good solution, or maybe replacing "national" with "representative". Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Equating Palestine with Catalonia is beyond ridiculous in so many levels.

If you cannot think of any other teams in the same situation as the "Selections" of Catalonia and the Basque Country... I suggest you take a look at the other 17 official regional teams representing other Spanish autonomous communities under the Royal Spanish Football Federation, which have identical status to those two.

And if you want to move away from the material reality and get into politics, then you'll know that the status of Palestine is a major ongoing issue at the United Nations with the majority of its integrants recognizing it as a country. In the other hand, absolutely no one questions the status of Catalonia, which is regarded just like every other European region a significant separatist movements present, such as Bavaria in Germany, Padania in Italy, Flanders in Belgium or Corsica in France. I see no one making absurd comparisons with Palestine with those. This matter is entirely ideological, and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the region, which has absolutely no paralell with what's happening in Israel. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that we need to make a consensus on what word is used to describe non-official football teams, for example the different "national teams" for the Spanish states/counties/whatever they're called. I think that the "Catalonian autonomous community football team" sounds good. Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately we need to determine what sources call the team, and that means using the common English name in sources. I have not done a search yet myself, but I am going to go out on a limb and guess they refer to it as a "national" team. But I don't know that for sure. Jay eyem (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a mistranslation, I've explained it at length in the my other comments. "Selecció" (selection) only refers to a "hand-picked" selection of players and is used at all levels, be it national ("Selección Francesa" for France's national team, or "Selección Española" for Spain), regional ("Selecció Catalana", as per their official website, for the team of the autonomous community of Catalonia) and even provincial ("Selección Sevillana", for the team of the province of Seville).

Translating the latter as "National team of Seville" with disregard of the context just because the direct translation is not common in English is just irrational. The same goes for "Selecció Catalana". The Chumbo One (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not a machine translation, I made it myself. If you want "made up" translations, look no further than "National Team". "Selecció" translates as "selection", as in, the selection of the players of the autonomous community (Spanish administrative subdivision) of Catalonia. At no point "national" is mentioned nor implied, as it is, to all effects, a regional team under the national Royal Spanish Football Federation of Spain.

So, since the direct translation ("selection") is by no means of common usage in English, then "football squad" is a far better option than "national team", as the "Selecció" is indeed a football squad, yet not a national team.

"Catalonia football team" makes it sound as if it were a club (Catalonia FC), and not a regional selection of players. As the native name is translates literally to "Selection of Catalonia" or "Catalan Selection", I belive "Football Squad of Catalonia" conveys the original meaning far better. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I've reverted them all, and will encourage the mover to use WP:RM. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Not undiscussed, I left a request 2 weeks ago here, absolutely no one answered, so, assuming a lack of readers or a lack of interest (its a regional footbal matter after all) I made the changes myself.

Wouldn't call "a bunch of significant changes" to what for the most part accounts to removing the word "national" where suitable. The Chumbo One (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not entirely accurate to say "absolutely no one answered", as you'll see from the archive page, but as I said at your talk, these discussions do tend to fizzle out.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a bold move. But now your moves have been reversed, you'll need to go through the requested move procedure. You should expect rather more response with a WP:RM than you got with your original opinion piece, because some sort of agreement needs to be reached for the move to take place, what new title to use, etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You moved several pages without a requested move on a politically contentious topic and then accused myself of ideologically driven editing. You also tried to change what was discussed in the past by editing the archive page, despite the fact that the very top of the page says NOT to do that. And what little feedback you did receive should not have led you to a consensus to make these changes. There's being bold, and then there are making personal attacks and moving pages without consensus. Jay eyem (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Someone posted a direct link to a comment and I replied, you can imagine I did not scroll up to check if a comment under two weeks old was archived. If you want to start a witch hunt over that, it's up to you.

And don't be fallacious, I didn't "try to change what was discussed in the past", I added a reply to someone who had left me a comment.

And trying to pass me mentioning "ideological reasons" as a "personal attack" is a rather good example of what you are trying to do here. The Chumbo One (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling out a personal attack is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of ideological editing absolutely is under WP:WIAPA bullet point 3. And judging based on your edit history, I am guessing you are relatively new to editing, especially something contentious like this. Which is the only explanation I can see for why you would edit an archive that explicitly says not to edit it. It's best to not accuse someone of having a political agenda without evidence, so maybe you should tone down your language on this discussion going forward. Jay eyem (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

An editor directly translating a Spanish title sounds like WP:OR to me, and we should be using a name commonly used in English language sources.Spike 'em (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is literally the problem that the previous title had... not only a lack of research... but also a terrible literal translation with total disregard of the context.

If you want sources, here you have the official website of the Catalan Federation, you´ll see that they always use the term "Selecció Catalana Absoluta masculina", not a trace of "national", "Selecció" only refers to a hand-picked selection of players, there are no national connotations with the term. As a matter of fact, there are even provincial "Selections", such as the "Selección Granadina", the team of the province of Granada, which I am sure absolutely no one would translate as "national" just because that's what the first out of context result in the dictionary says. The Chumbo One (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the link of the Catalan Federation: https://www.fcf.cat/seleccio-absoluta The Chumbo One (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked for some English language sources, as that is what drives article titles on en.wiki, not translations of Spanish sources.Spike 'em (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I repeat, using English sources as a source is pointless if those sources are mistranslated. The same word (selección/selecció) is used for national, regional and provincial levels and I am sure you would find it as irrational as me if someone translated "Selección Sevillana de Fútbol" as "National Team of Seville" just because it's the most commonly used translation in English. The Chumbo One (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:AT makes it clear: Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Your view on the translation of the official name in Spanish is irrelevant.Spike 'em (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Aha, I've specifically asked three Spanish-American linguists (including a very pro-Catalan one) and am a native myself, but lets better base it on whatever a random sports reporter with no clue of the language, the history or international politics writes in your average sensationalist sports journal. "Reliable". And of course for better contrast we can expect to find a thousand English sources mentioning the provincial under 16 team of the province of Seville.

It's pretty much like asking me to read the Wikipedia article to settle an error with the Wikipedia article... The Chumbo One (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have issues for how Wikipedia titles articles, feel free to start a WP:RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles and keep us updated. Jay eyem (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I will also replicate here a comment that was deleted from another Talk on the grounds that is an "old archived discussion" (not even two weeks old...):

The correct translation for "Selección Española" is NOT "Spain National Team", it just translates to "selection [of football players] of Spain". People often mistranslate "Selección" as "national team" because the literal translation (selection) is not used in English and they just pick the first entry they find in the dictionary with complete disregard to the context, but there is absolutely no "national" connotation in the word "selecció" (in Catalan) or "selección" (in Spanish).

Every other regional team uses the same name ("Selección Andaluza", "Selección de Castilla la Mancha"...) and it is used even for provincial teams, such as "Selección Granadina de Fútbol", the team of the province of Granada, and I'm sure you will all agree that translating these as a "national team" for the lack of a better dictionary entry would be beyond absurd.

The fact that the Squad of Catalonia plays matches against national teams means absolutely nothing. Other regional squads do as well. For instance, the squad of Andalusia has matches against Morocco, Estonia, Chile and even China. They are just meaningless friendlies.

You cannot compare the intranational regional status of the UK with that of Spain, they are completely different. The status of Gibraltar or Scotland is by no means the same as that of Catalonia or any other Spanish autonomous community.

And no, the Spanish Constitution does NOT acknowledge Catalonia as a nation, it merely talks about "nationalities" (historical nationalities), a term much debated, as a completely ambiguous and undefined recognition of the different cultural/linguistic/historical identities within Spain, which also encompasses several other cultural regions besides than Catalonia and the Basque Country. It is by no means akin to the "national" status of, say, Scotland. And most importantly, it has an ethnical meaning that has nothing to do with the Regional Football Team of Catalonia, which is not the team of those who are "ethnically Catalan", so to speak, but of those who are from the autonomous community (administrative subdivision) of Catalonia, independently of their ethnical/cultural background. It is so relaxed and trivial that even players who are not Catalan in any way like Iniesta or Reina have played in it. Yes, that same Iniesta from La Mancha who gave Spain a World Cup. The Chumbo One (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Make sure to mention all this at the RM you will need to raise to have any of these changes go ahead. Crowsus (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Formal Move Request issued. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catalonia_national_football_team The Chumbo One (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_119#Mark_Bradley_(footballer,_born_1988)

Took me a while, but I have found the conversation which I remember being discussed on this page.

I can't seem to think why we have an image like that on the Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988) infobox, surely it should be a photo of him actually in a football kit or other football related job. I doubt this infobox image here is appropriate enough to be honest.

FYI: an article on my watchlist has had the picture changed from a football related one to one which is not. Given one of the responses from the archived conversation, I won't name that article and therefore left that alone for now so the revert is not in my contributions. In most cases, lead photos are of people in football kits or acting as a manager, not on their holidays or other out of football activities. These type of photos I think should reach a consensus on if they to be kept or not.

Option 1 - Keep the Mark Bradley (footballer, born 1988) and similar photos in there.

Option 2 - remove due to that being out of scope for not using football kit/manager outfits.

Cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would only include a photo of someone if it shows them doing the activity they're notable for, e.g. playing football? As long as there's a clear view of the subject's appearance, and there's nothing particularly inappropriate in the picture, then it should be fine. I actually cropped the current version of the image you refer to from the original, in which Bradley can be seen standing topless on a boat holding a fish, which, to me, would not be suitable for inclusion. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see an issue with photos which don't show the subject playing or managing. Henrik Larsson's infobox image shows him as neither player nor manager, but attending some sort of function in black tie. It's a nice clear photo, though, so I see no reason to suggest its removal. In the case of Bradley we seem to have no other image, so surely a photo which conveys some visual info about him (he's white, he has dark hair) is better than no image at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I am now aware we have the full version visible from the link Mattythewhite provided. Comparing the photo with the ones found on Google Search does appear to be of the same person. That does seem fair as to why the photo used is in use at this moment re "visual info" even with Bradley wearing sunglasses. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that, despite not showing him in football attire, Bradley's photo is more useful to the reader than, say, Steve Arnold's, even though the latter does show him in a football setting...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If it weren't for the sunglasses I'd say it is a perfect infobox photo. It shows the face of the subject clearly in a good quality image.--Echetus Xe 11:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

[cnote_Note_HKG] 
Hong Kong (HKG): Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Premier League and all cup tournaments for the 2021–22 season were cancelled, with the teams to qualify for the Champions League yet to be announced.^[1]

[cnote_Note_TBC] 
To-be confirmed (TBC): Due to the change of the competition date to Autumn-Spring format, these nations will have two domestic season completed before the competition starts. They are expected to announce their own slot allocation method for the competition, but haven't confirmed it yet.

[2] If the AFC Champions league winners are from top associations and have not qualified through their domestic performance, they will replace the lowest-seeded team from their association.

[cnote_Note_HKG] 
Hong Kong (HKG): Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Premier League and all cup tournaments for the 2021–22 season were cancelled, with the teams to qualify for the Champions League yet to be announced.^[2]

[cnote_Note_TBC] 
To-be confirmed (TBC): Due to the change of the competition date to Autumn-Spring format, these nations will have two domestic season completed before the competition starts. They are expected to announce their own slot allocation method for the competition, but haven't confirmed it yet.

[1] "Arrangement of 2021-2022 BOC Life Hong Kong Premier League and cup matches". Hong Kong Football Association. 25 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.

[3] "Arrangement of 2021-2022 BOC Life Hong Kong Premier League and cup matches". Hong Kong Football Association. 25 February 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.

[Note TBC]

[Note HKG]

[1]

[a]

[2]