Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 157

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 155

Infobox formatting

@PeeJay: is amending the infobox formatting on the Charlie Scott (footballer) article - I disagree, and have reverted to restore the long-standing version. Input from other editors is welcome. Giant Snowman 13:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with PJ's format, much cleaner (especially on mobile view with a narrow screen). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

But which doesn't match the infobox formatting and which is not supported by editors of the page in question given that it has not been changed before - and are you going to excuse PJ's insults and edit warring? Giant Snowman 14:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You keep talking about the template documentation, but the formatting shown in the documentation is not necessarily what we have to stick to when we put the template in an article... – Pee Jay 14:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, as I have told you with e.g. Remeao Hutton (which is an article I created, edit extensively, and uses your version). But I do not understand why you have insulted me and edit warred over this? Giant Snowman 14:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, both formats (all on one line or new lines) are fine. IMO, it's a non-issue. I use both interchangeably (but probably use the all on one line more often on pages I create myself). My overall opinion is "Whatever". Every once in a while, I'll see a page on my watchlist changed from one form to the other and I just let it go. It doesn't affect anything. Neither way is better than the other. It's purely subjective and getting into an edit war on a non-issue is overdoing it. Really, just go with whatever format the person who actually keeps the stats updated on the page prefers. RedPatch (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to add to it, well said. Kante4 (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - my issue here is not a change, it is that there is no support for the change from the editors who edit the article in question. There is a long-standing, stable version of the infobox which PeeJay has attempted to unilaterally changed. Giant Snowman 14:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You are also part of the edit war, don't turn it into a unilateral issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I know - but I'm the one who started the talk page discussion on the article and this discussion. PeeJay simply continued to edit and ignore BRD. Giant Snowman 15:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't absolve anyone of anything. – Pee Jay 15:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

As it doesn't actually change how the page itself is viewed, it's pointless trivial editing to change it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is PeeJay still at it (and with inaccurate edit summaries to boot?) Giant Snowman 21:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

He is still being disruptive and editing infoboxes for no reason - can somebody else have a word please? Giant Snowman 08:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You are also being disruptive by engaging in an edit war, despite multiple editors here noting the triviality in doing so. This isn't a one-sided issue. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not - but PeeJay is the one who is changing the infobox when there is no consensus to do so! I am merely restoring the status quo. Giant Snowman 11:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

He's still at it!. Giant Snowman 19:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As are you (!). What's the point of this petty edit? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 08:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the formatting that has been present since 2017, that PJ had attempted to change. Giant Snowman 17:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I did change it. I changed it as part of a wider edit, and then you decided to change just the formatting of the infobox. You’re being incredibly petty and you need to stop. – Pee Jay 18:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

But why did you change it? And why are you trying to change it still? Giant Snowman 18:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you? I changed it because it makes the infobox neater, whereas you’re just changing it back because you don’t like it. – Pee Jay 21:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? Can you both not just drop it now? It's beyond petty. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay, you say you find one way of formatting neater and GS doesn't like it. Both sentiments are subjective. Please avoid making whitespace changes of this kind. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? For the sake of a few bytes? I'll try not to make such changes on their own, but if I do it as part of a larger edit, others should not simply revert the white space changes, as is the case here. – Pee Jay 22:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

You shouldn't be doing it at all, as part of a larger edit or not, unless you have project consensus that it's the preferred formatting. Otherwise these whitespace changes are disruptive. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to substantiate that assertion about project consensus. I see no evidence for it whatsoever. – Pee Jay 09:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asserting there is any. On the contrary: for that very reason – because consensus isn't clear – we should not be changing the formatting to our preferred, subjective ways. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The general consensus is probably (at least for me), use what is there. Unnecessary edits that change nothing are exactly that, unnecessary. The only times I've adjusted the format of those stats sections in the infobox are in situations where it was a mess such as this old reversion where everything was all over the place (years, clubs, caps, and goals were not in order and spread through the infobox), or this other example (where it listed all the years, then all the clubs, then all the caps, then all the goals), which I actually changed to the format you're changing it too. Those I felt had a valid reason to change, however, when it's already neatly aligned line-by-line, I feel there's no need to change it. RedPatch (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

So why am I being criticised (chiefly by Nehme) for reverting such changes? Why is PeeJay (childish as it sounds) being allowed to get away with it? Giant Snowman 17:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

On a one-off situation, I feel it's best to let it go, which is what we all said at first. (Initially I thought it was only happening on the one original article over and over, I didn't realize until recently it was multiple articles.) However, I don't agree with PeeJay intentionally doing it over and over either as it's improvement is negligible. I think it boils down to PeeJay's edits don't make it any better, but the reverts also don't make it any better. It'd be better if neither happened, but since it is, is it a battle worth fighting? Basically what's happening is a red wall is being repainted in the same red colour by PeeJay, and then GS you're then re-painting it again in the same exact red again and so on. Each additional coat is just unnecessary (Ie. every edit and revert and re-revert and re-re-revert, they're all unnecessary) and everyone (apart from the two of you it seems) is basically tired of it. We don't care who wins, we just want it over.RedPatch (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Same - edits like this show he views it as some kind of war of attrition (I do not), and as I state below, if he is makes the edit (even though there is no point) and is reverted, she should just move on. This is multiple articles, over years. Giant Snowman 17:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Because I feel like it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black. You keep calling out PJ on behaviour you yourself are doing. I'm not necessarily excusing PJ's behaviour, but I find it annoying that you're trying to rally up the whole project to agree with you ("PJ is still at it!" "Why did you change it?"). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

PeeJay is going around changing infoboxes - I am merely restoring them. There is a difference, but you fail to see that. Giant Snowman 18:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

He is "going around", while you are "merely". You can sugarcoat the situation as you like, but you are both effectively doing the same thing. "He started it" is not a good argument. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

It's probably not so much that there's a 'consensus to keep it the same and no support from other editors", it's more likely that there's a 'consensus of no one really cares which way is used'. It's a pointless edit war that literally has zero effects on the article. It's really a waste of time since it has zero effect on the article and I'm sure both of you have better things to do than go to war over such a trivial issue. RedPatch (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Trust me, I have much better things to do - so perhaps you could have a word with PeeJay and invite him to stop? Giant Snowman 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Then (and this is really for both parties) just let it go. You're the only one who seems to care that he changed it. In my original post last week, I said when people change the format on one of my watched pages, I let it go and leave the change because I don't care. You said you "Agreed" with that post. So, just let it go and whatever. It doesn't mean you're taking the L, it doesn't mean you're wrong, it means you're being the bigger person who is just walking away. Again, it's a non-issue that affects nothing. Who cares. RedPatch (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it does affect something - certain editors or groups of editors who edit the same page have, over time, got an article in a position that makes it easier to do the stats update. PeeJay is messing that up. Giant Snowman 20:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, editing with stats on one line on narrow screens (mobile view) is not comfortable at all. He isn't "messing up" anything. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And as I said above, the editors who actually edit the pages in question clearly have a preferred format, which PeeJay is disruptively changing without support to do so. Giant Snowman 21:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you and these anonymous editors give valid reasons for your preferred format, and why you chose to not use a format which is easier for mobile editors? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You're assuming these other editors prefer it your way. The reality is they probably don't care either, like everyone else who has posted here (the four not involved in the edit wars), and will update it in whatever format it is. I edit both formats, they're more or less the same to me. It's probably like that for the others. Simple enough way to test, instead of reverting it yourself immediately, see if anyone else does when they go to update it. RedPatch (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I have received 'thanks' from other editors for my reverts. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have better things to do, perhaps you should go do them. Absolute jobsworth. – Pee Jay 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, pathetic. I'll let you have the 'win' as you clearly need it, but for future amicable editing - if you change infobox formatting and it is reverted, please simply leave it and move on. If it is not reverted, then celebrate. Giant Snowman 17:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

If I make an edit that includes formatting changes to the infobox, and you come along to only revert those infobox changes, it’s not me who is the problem in that case. As I have said above, I will not edit articles only to change the infobox formatting, so if any further aggro is caused in this regard, you have only yourself to blame, as has always been the case. You seem to believe I’m doing this to spite you in some manner. While things are certainly headed in that direction, it would take a pretty pathetic person to believe they started that way. If the boot fits… if the boot fits. – Pee Jay 23:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, like Robby said, please do not change the infobox formatting, whether on its own or as part of a wider edit. That is not a lot to ask! Giant Snowman 07:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what is the problem with changing the infobox formatting as part of a wider edit if that is easier to work with for the editor who is making the change. --SuperJew (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Because these are not articles that PeeJay edits frequently - he pops along, changes the infobox, and goes on his way... Giant Snowman 08:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m more inclined to go along with the editors who have said it doesn’t make any difference to them what format is used. If I make a change, just suck it up and deal with it. You are no longer assuming good faith; in fact, I believe that went out the window for you months ago. – Pee Jay 10:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's part of a larger edit, it's not necessary. I just finished a couple of very large edits, I didn't spend much time at all on the infobox (only to update caps and add a missing youth national team). So you do have to go out of your way to change it. It does feel like just a case of WP:ILIKEIT for you and I was the first editor to say just let it go to GS. You can also just let it go as well and not do it either. RedPatch (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I can't even bother going into the articles to see the history and edits, but in general I can see (and have done) cases where as part of a larger edit/update of the infobox changing the format could be easier to work with it. --SuperJew (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch: I understand that. If you don't want to change the infobox format, that's up to you, but if I'm doing a wider edit, I may or may not update the infobox - depends how I feel. As I've explained, I think it makes the code neater; you may disagree, you may think it's not necessary, but the point isn't whether you would do it yourself. The point is, I did it and GiantSnowman took it upon himself to revert only the changes to the infobox for no good reason. As I said above, he has stopped assuming good faith when it comes to my edits and I'm starting to think he's not actually cut out to be an administrator on this website. – Pee Jay 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The point is, I did it and GiantSnowman took it upon himself to revert only the changes to the infobox for no good reason. No, the point is that your unnecessary whitespace changes – and they are that because you don't have consensus for them as this already far too long discussion shows – are just as disruptive.

You have been told by multiple other editors of this project that your whitespace changes are not welcome. Please listen. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, it does not revolve about what you "feel" or what you think is "neater". Robby.is.on (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You're making far too big a deal of this. While you may think my changes are unnecessary, they're hardly disruptive, especially if I make them as part of wider edits, as I intend to do in the future. If you revert the changes to the infobox alone, you are part of the problem. – Pee Jay 15:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You should read WP:IDHT. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, that link doesn't apply to me any more than it does to you. – Pee Jay 16:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, no. You've received pushback from multiple editors while not one supports your POV. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, for regularly edited articles (such as those first team players I'm editing after every game) I prefer the "narrow" format, as it makes it easier to navigate around the infobox to +1 to appearances and (if I'm lucky) goals. However, if I'm creating/updating a typical lower league Brazilian player article who has played for the usual 20+ clubs, the "single line" format is preferable, because the infobox would be miles long. Guess I don't really care much either. I've certainly never changed the format of an existing infobox (as far as I can remember) Gricehead (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've always found the aligned format aesthetically ugly to see and more difficult to edit. Better the GS's version. Dr Salvus 09:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I've compared the version prior to when all this kicked off with the one immediately after. The edit concerned replaced some newlines with spaces, and added further spaces before and after pipes and equals signs. The order of the parameters was exactly the same, no parameters were added or removed, and no parameter values were altered in any way at all. The visual appearance to the reader is exactly the same: it was a purely cosmetic edit. A change in format is only apparent when either viewing a diff, or when editing the article. To have four pairs of edit-and-revert is borderline WP:EW, and might be worthy of WP:LAME.
My opinion: PeeJay should not have made the edit in the first place, but having made it, GiantSnowman should not have reverted either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair assessment - but BRD applies, and PeeJay has bulldozered that. Giant Snowman 17:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I've already agreed to modify my behaviour, but it is a compromise, not a full accession. If other editors don't like that, that's their problem. – Pee Jay 21:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a compromise if you continue your behaviour, FYI. But I'm happy to move on from this, since the community has made their views on your edits clear. Giant Snowman 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, most of them don't give a shit. – Pee Jay 18:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

1911 Fier Fair Football Tournament (Albania)

We have an article for the Fier Fair Football Tournament in 1911 in Albania. However, RSSSF believes that the whole thing was a "journalistic hoax": https://www.rsssf.org/tablesa/alba1911.html, citing this blog: http://gottfriedfuchs.blogspot.com/2014/01/albania-1911.html

Do we have any evidence other than the orignal journalist's article that this tournament actually took place? Any Albanian experts out there? Should we delete?

(I did originally post this on the article's talk page a while ago but I don't think it gets much traffic.) Nonleagueapps (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

guess its time to go here List of hoaxes.Muur (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

FLC Nomination

I have nominated List of UEFA Champions League hat-tricks for WP:FL. As it is a football article, it would mean a lot if some of you could give your reviews in the nomination page. Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Álvaro Morata

Is anyone else having an issue reverting this edit at Álvaro Morata? I'm being confronted with this message when attempting to do so: "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist or Wikimedia's global blacklist". Mattythewhite (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue was this ref which is part of the Accelerated Mobile Pages project. I didn't know it was blacklisted, but that makes sense--there are a lot of concerns about Google controlling web traffic via that program. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2016 knockout phase

Last month I edited the above page to correct some erroneous information around the Wales/Belgium game, and this was then reverted by @PeeJay (who I am tagging just in case they want to add anything to the discussion, I may not be a perfect reporter of these situations). When I noticed this I undid the revert, and this undo was then undone itself. Now I'm not changing this again because I have no interest or desire in this turning into an edit war or anything. The crux of the issue that I see is the following:

The Wales/Belgium graphic and team lineup incorrectly lists Neil Taylor as having played on the right and Chris Gunter on the left for Wales.
- (The edits I made to the article to this point also changed the position of those players from wingers to wingbacks but I am not interested in this now, because I appreciate that these things are a bit more subjective, and the formation of the Wales team is reported differently in all the different places that reported on this game. I only want to raise the issue of the sides that Taylor and Gunter are reported as being on).

As I understand it, the reason that the article currently states what it does is because the official UEFA website's report of the match has Gunter on the left and Taylor on the right, and this website is the one that is used as standard on the articles containing European Championship matches. Apparently this comes from teamsheets submitted by the relevant football associations.

The issue is though, that the UEFA website is incorrect. As they did in every other game in the tournament, Taylor actually played on the left and Gunter on the right. I made this correction originally from memory (I watched this game live) but I have also reviewed the footage of the match from Wyscout (I do some work in a football tactics based space) in question to confirm that I was not misremembering. It's clear that there's just been an administrative error somewhere, either from the FAW or UEFA

Obviously, I appreciate that Project Football tends to use the UEFA reports for these things and my memory and reviewal of the footage doesn't count as a source, due to Wikipedia's policy on primary sources. But then there is an issue - what happens when the so-called 'reliable secondary source' is demonstrably incorrect, but the proof doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards? If I change it on the strength of my memory/the footage I violate the policy, but if I leave it as it is, then I knowingly allow the page to include false information.

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws section 1.7, we are advised to check multiple sources. I have searched online, and all of the other places that report a formation for this game have Taylor listed on the left and Gunter listed on the right, unlike the UEFA article. These are below:
- The BBC's report
- Transfermarkt's report
- Google's report
- Additionally, the formation report on WyScout also lists Taylor on the left and Gunter on the right. As this is not a public-facing page, but instead is an industry-focused paid-for service that I have only been able to screenshot, I appreciate if this cannot be factored into any consideration.

Ultimately, I think that there is more than a sufficient case here to correct the inaccuracy in the Wales/Belgium section. I would like that the information could be corrected (though I don't know how to make a new graphic).

Helloher Talk 15:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this really. I feel like we have an over-reliance on UEFA tactical line-ups, but they are often the best option we have. What makes it worse is that the formations are submitted to UEFA by the teams themselves (probably not by a top member of the coaching staff but by a media staffer, but still...) – Pee Jay 16:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I've checked the photo details and was made by S.A. Julio who placed these two player names in the wrong place with respect to the BBC and Google's reports. This part of the article should read with the following:


LW	3	Neil Taylor
RW	2	Chris Gunter	24'

The fact that Neil Taylor usually plays as a left back and did so vs Belgium so the article should make the version by the editor who started this talk page section correct. Perhaps we should notify S.A. Julio about the error since they made the image for usage on the UEFA article linked at the heading of this section. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of the discussion. SA Julio did not make a mistake, since they based their graphic on the UEFA line-up PDF, as we always do. However, as Helloher has pointed out, the UEFA PDFs are not infallible. Teams often line up differently to the way they submit their teams for UEFA's documentation. To me, this raises the question of what we should actually do when we know a usually reliable source is factually incorrect. – Pee Jay 18:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Presumably that means SA Julio definitely used the UEFA source to make that graphic. I didn't see that source while making the first response to the section. And I have no idea why there is a preview error in that response either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy the Swan (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

We usually base our line-up images off the pre-match formations used by UEFA. Of course this is not a perfect solution, but it allows for consistency through all tournament matches, instead of picking and choosing sources for each game. Alternatively, we could base the formations off the tactical line-ups published by UEFA after the match, though for some matches this is not always as clear-cut. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

2022–23 FA Cup qualifying rounds

I removed the "upsets" sections as being based on some editors opinion not fact only to have my edits reverted. Should the article have "upsets" sections in it? Dougal18 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Overkill for me. Kante4 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, particularly because they're not notable upsets. Especially the ones like 15 teams beat an opponent one division above them, including the only victor from the 10th tier, Wincanton Town.[61] No team won against an opponent two leagues above. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely no need for these sections. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

a team beating a team one tier higher isnt an upset really, most of the time two below isn't either as a lot of the time theyll play kids or reserves thinking its an easy win. something like man united kids vs a league one team and the l1 team wins isnt an upset cuz they played kids. now if ronaldo was playing against burton and burton won 4-0 thats notable.Muur (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

TBF that isn't really relevant to the article being discussed, because it concerns non-league teams, not the likes of Man U. I doubt that Nantwich Town decided to play a bunch of kids because they were "only" taking on Congleton Town...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The two towns are both in Cheshire, and about fifteen miles apart (as the crow flies), it's almost a Derby match (except that Alsager, Crewe and Sandbach are in between), so I really don't think that Nantwich would field anything other than their first team. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links

Are there any new football club stats sites we can use? This list is very outdated, with most of the UK club websites being dead links. I found Hyde United have a fantastic stats database and am keen to see if any other random clubs have anything similar. Echetus Xe 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Sofascore is absurdly good. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Quick look at that site and it doesn't strike me as a reliable source. Remember, we have to use sites that are deemed reliable not just any old site that has statistics on them. NapHit (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

When you took a "quick look", what lead you to believe it was unreliable? Was it the stats going back to the 1966 World Cup? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Where are the stats being sourced from? Who runs the website? How do we know it's reliable? Just a few of the questions I'd ask about the site. Looking for the guidelines for reliable sources here, there's little to suggest that sofascore meets these guidelines. NapHit (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Opta supply the stats. If Opta aren't reliable then I don't know what is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

if the stats are sourced from Opta, then cut out the middleman. Spike 'em (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Conversion of Bath city F.C. logo

I wanted to ask if you possibly know how to convert PNG football logos to SVG, I want to do so for a non league club, Bath City F.C., as PNG images look blurry on mobile, thank you very much. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph1891: The French wiki version of the page appears to have an SVG file logo. Perhaps you can just use that one. Checked on my mobile and it looks clearer than the PNG one on the English language page. RedPatch (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch, you cant use other's nations Wikipedia images can you? Joseph1891 (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@@Joseph1891:, you can probably just save the file to your computer and use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. RedPatch (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks so much, it seems to work...won't the image just get taken down though? Joseph1891 (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For non-free images (such as sports logos), using the wikipedia uploader (not the wikimedia commons) will not get it deleted, provided it's being used for fair-use, which is what displaying the logo is. However, I just tried to save the french page logo, but for whatever reason, it's saving it as a png file on my computer (not sure if it is on yours). Not sure why, but I don't really have any experience with SVG files. Perhaps one of the other pages you left messages at (like the one below) can help if you send them the link to the french image. RedPatch (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you so much for your help, really appreciate it. Seems that an svg Bath City file page has been created on the English Wikipedia, But when I add the image it's far too large and I can't seem to make it smaller. Joseph1891 (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I figured out my issue and just uploaded the svg file on english wiki and it seems to work now. I put it on the page RedPatch (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank You so much @Redrose64!! Joseph1891 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to say "thank you so much @RedPatch" Joseph1891 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

you did it!!!!!! Joseph1891 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Oops, hadn't seen your message that you just uploaded it. Oh well, now there's two. It'll just automatically delete the unused one in a week. RedPatch (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Also please see the reply left at Wikipedia:SVG help#Bath City FC logo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

oh my God.... Joseph1891 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Injury

When's a injury notable? Dr Salvus 21:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I presume you mean "when is an injury significant enough to mention in a player's article?"....? Personally I would say when it has a significant impact on his/her career i.e. ends a player's career or causes a lengthy absence (at least a couple of months) or causes them to miss a specific major match (e.g. a cup final) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

For me, the abscense should be of more than 20 days depending of what player he is. Such injuries from a injury prone player would not be notable. Dr Salvus 21:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Individual injuries for an injury-prone player may not be notable but it is certainly worth summing up and explaining that they are injury prone especially if it has an impact on their career. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Bert Trautmann broke his neck during the 1956 FA Cup Final, but he still played out the match to its final whistle and collected his winner's medal. That injury was notable by itself, even if he did miss the first few weeks of the following season. Players these days leave the field for the most minor of bumps and scrapes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Where has 20 days come from?! If an injury/rehabilitation gets covered in detail in a newspaper atticle (i.e. about the injury itself, not just a passing mention) then include it. Giant Snowman 19:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

What if the club itself comunicates the injury on an official statement? In Italy, I often find official statements copied and pasted on newspapers articles. Dr Salvus 19:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A newspaper reprinting a club statement is not a reliable source to me. Remember that WP:NOTDIARY applies here; we don't need a blow-by-blow description of any player's career. Spike 'em (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Who is the newspaper to say the injury is false? Dr Salvus 19:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Where did I say anything like that? Sources used in articles are meant to be independent of the subject, so just parroting club statements is not enough for me. Spike 'em (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Usually these newspapers copy and past the statement and say something else (for example the dynamic of the injury, if it happened in a game). Dr Salvus 20:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no hard or fast rule, but best to use your judgement. Best way to think about it is if I'm reading this in five years, would I consider it important. Just because there's a news report or something, doesn't necessarily mean it's notable. There might be a report that comes out today "Player XYZ to miss next match with sore ankle". In five years, you're reading the article and was it really notable injury if he just he missed a game or two. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a full-length book biography. I like to use that "pretend I'm in the future" way of thinking to make a decision. Sometimes when I'm writing a big update on an article and look for sources from the past, I come across some of those web reports of very minor news (injury/goal/other non-notable event) and I move past them because they aren't really notable. Vast majority of players will not play every game in a season as they'll pick up some sort of knock along the way and need a game off here or there. One thing I sometimes check is the stats table. Say going year by year a player played 29/30/12/31/28/30 games. I probably wouldn't question those ~30 game season, but I might see that 12 game season and figure there must've been a big injury or something and go back into the prose to see and find out why. That could be a good rule of thumb, an injury (or other) that's major that has a non-minor impact on their season/career. RedPatch (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this: we should only be reporting on major events / trends in a player's career, not giving match-by-match coverage. The significance of an injury is usually not known until some time after it happening. Spike 'em (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Clubs missing 2022-23 articles

What are the most notable clubs missing 2022-23 season articles? Crystalpalace6810 (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

None in the Football League... Giant Snowman 19:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Only found Juventus Women (I no longer care a lot on women's football). There would be Juventus U23 2018-19 or Juventus first-team seasons prior to the 1970s. Dr Salvus 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what are the notability guidelines for a season article?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Essentially, teams playing in a fully professional league provided WP:GNG can be met (which is demonstratable for most fully professional leagues) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep - WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 21:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to note that if you disregard all the stuff about US college sports, all NSEASONS actually says is "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements"........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Frosinone, Perugia and Ternana in Serie B, and all clubs in Serie C (except Juventus Next Gen). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox football biography

I've made a suggestion here if anybody would like to give their thoughts. Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 17:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Dušan Uhrin at Al-Nasr

There seems to be some confusion regarding which Al-Nasr club this coach had coached in 1998. According to some sources and databases, he was at Saudi club Al Nassr FC. According to the others (and this is the version I support) he coached Emirati club Al-Nasr SC (Dubai). Is there anyone here who has access to any offline sources from the 90s? I assume his career should be well documented in either Czech sports press (as a former successful manager of Czech Republic NT), or in the Israeli press (as his next job after Al Nassr was Maccabi Haifa, who reached Cup Winners Cup QF under Uhrin). --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

reliable sources...

is zerozero.pt a reliable source? its the equivalent of cerocero in spanish. 2601:6C5:8100:6D80:F99C:D20:906C:AE76 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's user-generated, so no. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed - it is not a reliable source. Jogurney (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

1911-12 FC Barcelona season

A Copa del Rey winning season, old book sources and stuff out there, and the article got deleted and redirected! Dam, Terrible AfD, wikipedia is going to the dogs I see. Peace out. Govvy (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to AfD here. I never saw this AfD - have to say I am surprised that GiantSnowman !voted to delete on the basis of "no evidence of notability" given that the club won the national cup that season, which is surely a claim to notability......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Arguments based on WP:NSEASON seem faulty as NSEASON states Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements. I'll start a deletion review soon. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've decided not to start a discussion but rather discuss it with the closing admin. I know PMD as a very reasonable editor and I'm sure whatever the conclusion you both will be satisfied with the result :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there a possibility the article could satisfy WP:GNG? The Spanish language wiki includes this single paragraph in El Día that covers Barcelona's copa win that hardly could be seen as SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am no expert on vintage Spanish sourcing, but I have to say I would be very surprised if multiple sources couldn't be found on the team that won Spain's version of the FA Cup that season..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

From my research on the 1919 Copa del Rey Final, I can tell you there were many highly active newspapers in Spain that would cover the matches of Barcelona. The Spanish Digital Library has free access to dozens of newspapers that could be of use, so I would expect it to satisfy GNG, Jogurney. An article not having sources does not mean one cannot find sources for the article, especially if the coverage would be mostly in a foreign language. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. supporters

There's been an ongoing edit war on this page over the inclusion of a rather long list of celebrity Arsenal fans. Personally I regard it as unnecessary cruft but there are others who want to keep it. At the very least it requires a lot more scrutiny of dubious and poorly sourced additions. Any thoughts? MaximumOccupancy (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is currently under semi-protection so that should stop the edit warring going on as well as the IP sockpuppetry. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Locking out the IP to protect the current page doesn't solve the issue though. It's a valid question for discussion. MaximumOccupancy (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we decided years ago that including laundry lists of "famous supporters" was not encyclopedic? I can't see how it's relevant to the club's history that minor celebrity X once made a throwaway reference to "oh yeah, I support Arsenal". I would wholeheartedly support removing this list.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you please point me in the direction of the discussion which decided to remove these lists.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There was an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_127#Famous_fans in which consensus was to remove lists of famous fans unless said fans had a notable impact on the club itself (i.e. Elton John). Given this, the list should be removed. Black Kite (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That Rfc covered removing mention of celebrity fans from the article on the club they support only not articles specifically on supporters of any club.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Arsenal supporters page is discussed in the RfC. And if that was the case, any list of supporters that was removed from an article could be "saved" by forking it off like this one has been, which would make it pointless. Trivia lists are trivia lists, wherever they are situated. Black Kite (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Rfc was "Under what circumstances should a celebrity's professed support for a football team be mentioned in the article on that team?" and that was what people decided on. It then forked off into a discussion on supporters' acticles which came to no conclusion and was not submitted to Rfc.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

One of the arguments in favour of such lists was that "celebrity fans are part of a club's culture". I can concur that certain celebrity fans fit that description and are strongly associated with the club in the public eye (eg Man City and the Gallagher brothers), but I really don't see the value in a massive laundry list of every minor celeb who once tweeted "come on the Gooners!" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess what I am saying is that any mention of "famous supporters of club X" should only cover people who are famous for being supporters of club X, not just "famous" people who happen to have once mentioned in passing that they support club X -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the points made above, but maybe a “category:celebrities who support ___” could work? Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Crystalpalace6810: - categories are meant to relate to defining aspects of an article's subject. I doubt that which football team(s) they support is defining for 99.99% of "celebrities". It would be akin to having "Category:Celebrities who are fans of the Beatles", which would obviously be nonsense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've always hated that article, it's trivial, tabloid. If a celeb says they support a club just have a sentence in Personal life section. Matt Lucas article says "He supports Arsenal." It needs to be better written than that know. It's just a stale fact the way it's written there. I don't see a need for a category either. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

League standings tables and MOS:ACCESS

Per MOS:COLOR: "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information."

Most versions of the table do not include a symbol or legend, which presents a problem for some readers. Is there a way to implement this for tables (such as those used for MLS) or would it require tinkering with the Sports table module itself? Sounder Bruce 06:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. Any league table I've edited uses text to denote what the colours mean in the qualification/relegation column on the right of the table so the information isn't solely conveyed through colour. The 2022 Major League Soccer season article does that as well. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The truncated version does not include the notes column (see MLS Cup 2022), so it's a matter of including linked notes in the truncated table or finding another way to display this information. Sounder Bruce 03:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't be using the nested tables like that (I assume we are talking about the "Route to the final" section?). Articles like 2000 Football League Second Division play-off Final handle this much better IMO, where the shortened table and fixtures are two separate tables. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Due to the nature of MLS (with separate conferences), a combined table wouldn't work so well. Sounder Bruce 07:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of having the table for each conference at the top of each team's prose, or at least having them above and below rather than left and right. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

How does one create a custom Football club kit?

This is my final question, Hi again, I'm sorry I've asked so many questions recently, I just want to improve my skill and knowledge of/on Wikipedia in terms of football. I wanted to ask how one creates the football club's custom kit's as seen in the info box of almost every club. Thanks very much again. Joseph1891 19:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, but if the people who enjoy making them could have a crack at the Port Vale away kit then I would appreciate it.--Echetus Xe 12:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: Now I'd love to see a Port Vale player run around the pitch with that hat on.

Govvy (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@EchetusXe I don't think it's too hard, (I may be wrong) loads of fans seem to make custom kits for their club, thousands are uploaded every season, I'm just not sure how you do it, by the way that's a lovely kit. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

See here. The easiest way to create the new template (which that page doesn't really cover) is to download an existing one and edit it in a programme like Paint -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much @ChrisTheDude, sorry how do you actually download the file? What's the best way to edit the image in paint? again, sorry for all the questions, thanks. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Open an existing kit image file eg this one (finding one quite similar to what you want to produce would be a good bet). Download it to your computer. Then edit the colours/patterns in MS Paint or a similar programme -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok makes sense now, think I have the hang of it thanks so much @ChrisTheDude -- Joseph1891 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Lists of English transfers

Didn't we originally start these lists (e.g. List of English football transfers summer 2008) only including transfers involving only Premier League and Championship clubs? Seems like around 2018, some editors decided to extend this to the entirety of the EFL, but this now means the numbers of transfers in the list are massive, making the articles unwieldy. I can't see any reason given for the change, so can anyone shed any light on this, and should we perhaps consider streamlining the lists again? – Pee Jay 15:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If I am honest, I personally don't think we should have these lists on wikipedia! This too me has always been a WP:NOSTATS issue. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to include the EFL. If it is too big, perhaps should consider splitting it to page per league. --SuperJew (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel I agree with Govvy. Majority (if not all of these teams) have their own season articles which cover the team's individual transfers in and out. This is just double counting all of that. I've seen these for other leagues as well (including smaller leagues) where they get to be incomplete as it could just be one person maintaining it sometimes or because it's easy to miss a bunch when there's so many. RedPatch (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that. Having a full list allows for fees to be compared between clubs in the same country. I should also say, we don't need to reference each transfer individually when we have a BBC page that summarises each month's transfer activity. There are so many citation templates on the summer 2022 page that we've had to invoke them rather than transcluding them! – Pee Jay 01:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The summer 2022 page has so many citations, because it is so many leagues and should be split. Having one reference for the whole page is not a good solution either - pages should be sourced on multiple references. --SuperJew (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the transfers are sourced to the BBC anyway, and the BBC's aggregated transfer page actually links to their articles about each transfer, so using that is a more streamlined way of doing what we were already doing. Nevertheless, I'm happy to go along with splitting the articles into individual pages for the Premier League, Championship, League One and League Two. Is that what we're proposing? If so, I suggest doing that in conjunction with using the overall BBC ref. It just makes sense. – Pee Jay 11:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Couldn’t we just split the existing article into sections of premier league, championship, league 1 and 2?Crystalpalace6810 (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Splitting into divisional sections would just make the list even longer: you'd have to include any transfer / loan across divisions in 2 places. Spike 'em (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sections is a non-starter. Separate articles for each division would make more sense. – Pee Jay 11:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Players scouted while playing among friends

I know this can be off-topic but can be somehow helpful for me as well. I've read there are players scouted while playing among friends. How's this possible? Do teams have scouts who see squares or streets to wait for kids to play? Dr Salvus 10:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No, sometimes it's just luck. A player might not even be spotted by an official scout, the person who spots them might have connections through to the club without being on the payroll. – Pee Jay 10:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I can't remember who it was, but someone (I think like Graziano Pelle or something) were scouted playing football on the beach by a scout who was just hanging around. I do think in South America, scouts know to keep their eyes peeled for street footballers as well. Ortizesp (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Fb rs footer

I've just noticed the date updater part is no longer working on the template, can anyone fix that? Govvy (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I just amended a date on a table using it and the new date appears in the article. The template has not been changed for 3 years... Spike 'em (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Nm, seems someone has removed the u element which threw me off. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with display and linking of Ireland's football teams

It seems currently the code for Ireland's football teams {{fb|IRL}} and {{fbw|IRL}} is displaying the wrong information (the old Ireland flag and link), namely: Republic of Ireland and Republic of Ireland. I tried to check the templates, but can't find where it was changed. Anyone have more luck or knowledge of this and can restore it to linking to the current Republic of Ireland football teams? --SuperJew (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Country data Republic of Ireland had been redirected, which I've reverted.Spike 'em (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you :) SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Cavan Town A.F.C.

I was running through the new page feed, came across Cavan Town AFC. I did a google search to see if it deserves to be on wikipedia. I found one source, [1], which says "He played against Cavan in the All-Ireland minor semi-final in 1937". It doesn't mention another club on the article, so I am confused if there was an older club, if this is a recreation of an older club. The same source also states "Because Cavan Town certainly sees itself as a football town". Was wondering if there is a lot more too this.

Also on a side note, I saw a club called Clones Town, [2] which states they are the oldest football club in Ireland, is that even noted on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the first article you found is about Gaelic football, rather than Association. Spike 'em (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, then maybe Cavan Town AFC isn't that notable? Govvy (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that article is 100% about Gaelic football. The trophy in the photo is the Sam Maguire Cup, awarded to the winners of the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, which is the most prestigious competition in Gaelic football. The fact that Cavan Town A.F.C. play in a league which doesn't even have an article and appears to exist at level 7 of the Republic of Ireland football league system suggests it is a very minor local amateur club..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

k, I've decided to PROD the article. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

MLS Expansion Draft articles and copyright

The 2020 MLS Expansion Draft, 2021 MLS Expansion Draft, and 2022 MLS Expansion Draft article all have had copyright issues with the format section being copied from the MLS draft rules pages directly. These were all copyright violations. I've rewritten the sections so that they are no longer a copy of the MLS draft rules pages. A quick look at the other expansion draft article shows there are more of these articles that have copied text. That may also be true for some of the other articles in List of MLS drafts. I am asking for volunteers from this Wikiproject to review those other articles and do a rewrite of the draft format section. You can use the rewrites I've done as a model. Any article which needed to have a rewrite due to copyright should be tagged with a {{copyvio-revdel}} to have an admin deal with the copyvio revisions. Alternatively, you can drop a note on my talk page with the article name and I will take care of it. Thank you. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Full name of Connor Roberts

I have started a discussion on Talk:Connor Roberts (footballer, born 1995) about the change of one of his middle names noticed today. I always thought the full name was "Connor Richard Jones Roberts" though it appears the new source added today does not match others about this fact. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox football tournament

The functions for the two parameters 'most apperances' and 'top goalscorer', which are also mentioned in the article itself, were added by me to display them in football tournaments as the FIFA World Cup, European Championship‎, UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League etc.. However, the added functions in the template were revised from an another user.

So i wanted to ask, if a specific reason or a consensus exist, why these two parameters should only appear in domestic leagues and not such football tournaments? Miria~01 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

While looking at this, I clicked on the example linking it to the 2016–17 UEFA Champions League article and that page doesn't actual use the above template, they use Template:Infobox international football competition which is a very similar type of infobox. In that one you do have top scorer at least but neither that template or Template:Infobox football tournament season have appearances. — NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 05:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not every stat needs to be in the infobox. The topscorer has an award at least per season. You get nothing for most apearances in a tourney or season. And also for the e.g. Europa League as a whole most apearences or goals is just another stat. -Koppapa (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

For individual seasons, I also see no reason to indicate the most appearances. But when it comes to all-time appearances or all-time most goals, the situation is different.

This stats are stated for the domestic leagues as Premier League with:

Most appearances:

Gareth Barry (653)

Top goalscorer:

Alan Shearer (260)

or La Liga

Most appearances:

Andoni Zubizarreta (622)

Top goalscorer:

Lionel Messi (474)

So why shouldn't it also apply to international tournaments?!

e.g.

FIFA World Cup

most appearances:

Lothar Matthäus (25)

top goalscorer:

Miroslav Klose (16)

or

UEFA Champions League

most appearances:

Christiano Ronaldo (183)

top goalscorer:

Cristiano Ronaldo (140) Miria~01 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "most appearances" is not a stat that should be included for an individual season/tournament, for the simple reason that it is not a stat that is ever reported in other sources. There's always a big fuss about who the Premier League top goalscorer was at the end of a season, but I don't ever recall the press reporting on which player made the most appearances...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know how EclecticArkie creates thier graphs?

Another request in sought a short amount of time, sorry for the annoyance. Does anyone possibly know how: EclecticArkie makes the history of seasons SVG graph for football clubs? I've asked him directly but it appears he hasn't taken anyone's requests since 20200, however he still edits quite frequently. I'd quite like to create a graph myself for: Bath City F.C. However, I have no experience with creating such graphs, But I'd love to learn! If anyone is experienced in this sought of area, I'd really appreciate a bit of help, guidance or just someone to point me in the right direction. Example of Notts County's seasons by EclecticArkie: I'd like to create the same sought of thing for Bath City. Thanks so much Joseph1891 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Joseph1891 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

You already asked a similar question at Wikipedia:SVG help#Does anyone know how EclecticArkie creates his graphs?, please respect WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Really sorry, I didn't realise you weren't allowed to ask the same question on more than one different request articles. Thank you for the update. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think anyone knows except the man himself. You'd be better off asking on a technical website where people who create python scripts a lot might have an odea.--Echetus Xe 10:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

EclecticArkie (talk · contribs) is still creating graphs like these, the most recent being c:File:Barrow AFC League Performance.svg from 11 October (less than 4 weeks ago). I actually find this one easier to follow than the bulk of such work (an example being the Notts County one above), because the visual contrast between line and background is better, and instead of using shades of grey to denote league/division steps, it uses distinct colours, so it's clearer how the NPL has been moved down two steps by the insertion of the Conference and then the NLN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I create those graphs by directly editing the svg code in a text editor, usually the Notepad utility in the Wintel environment. The learning curve is steep, but the control of every element in the graphic is absolute and the file size can be kept to an absolute minimum. Applications like Inkscape include so much bloated code in the saved file that isn't necessary for our purposes, producing an unnecessarily large file.

If you're interested in learning svg, I can highly recommend https://jenkov.com/tutorials/svg/index.html . His site covers the basics and has been invaluable to me. Download some SVG files off of commons, play with making changes, then preview it in a browser to see the effect of your changes. EclecticArkie (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you @EclecticArkie. Sorry to clarify, where do you actually write the code? Is this the software you mean: Notepad++ I'm so confused, I have no experience in this field. Keep up the great work, your graphs are amazing. Joseph1891 Joseph1891 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be Notepad - any text editor that saves files as plain text will work. On a Windows machine, somewhere in the Start menu (perhaps under Accessories) you may find Notepad or Wordpad - if you have both, use Notepad. On Linux or Unix machines, use vi.

As mentioned above, the best way of learning about SVG is to download some existing files, and modify them. To test your changes, you don't need to upload intermediate steps to Commons, because all modern browsers (except Internet Explorer) will display SVG files directly. To check this, click the Notts County thumbnail above, and on the file description page, click the Original file link - if this produces a larger version of the Notts County thumbnail above with no unexpected text above or below (the text "Notts County F.C. League Performance 1888-2021" is expected), your browser is compatible.

Now, what does a SVG file really look like under the surface? When viewing the "Original file", use your browser's "View page source" feature (often Ctrl+U). As you can see, it looks very much like HTML. As a reference source, I use the W3C's Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.1 (Second Edition). If you use a different reference, don't use SVG constructs that are only described in version 1.2 or later, they won't work on Commons.

In the case of the Notts County image, there are only six types of SVG elements being used: <g>...</g>, <path />, <svg>...</svg>, <text>...</text>, <tspan>...</tspan>, and <use />. The different items of text (the caption at the top, the years, etc.) are produced by the text elements, whilst the various lines and blocks are drawn by the path elements, and these can be very powerful. In fact, it's possible to draw the same image using only those two ielements plus the svg element, but it would be more complex. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you very much @Redrose64 when I have time I'll look at it, didn't realise it was quite so complicated. Joseph1891 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've download notepad++, Though I'm note sure how I can get the image to show in a web browser? Also does anyone know, maybe @EclecticArkie can answer themselves, if they did this by hand? (e.g. implement each date and position separately) or was it an automated process, similar to that of inserting of graph into Excel? (unlikely) Also, if @EclecticArkie doesn't mind, I'm just going to try copying a similar format, not to post on to Wikimedia yet, just to practice. Besides I'm a long way from being able to upload anything with any quality. Sorry these are probably stupid questions. I really want to learn to code SVG, mainly just for Wikipedia, but I have never done anything like this before. I'd appreciate a reply, really want to get to grips with this. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

It's done by the legend himself: @EclecticArkie Joseph1891 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Bath City FC SVG season graph

Recently an SVG graph of Bath City F.C's seasons was added to the Bath City article, made by Richard Rundle. Which is amazing, and it's really helpful.

However, I have a few small issues with it:

1) The tier/level seems to be the same for; "Third Division and "League Two" and; "First Division" and "Championship" etc.. which I don't really understand.

2) With the majority of Eclectic Arkie's graphs, the "tier" column is present, when it isn't, it's a bit harder for the viewer to tell what sought of level the club was playing at, especially during the earlier years.

3) I'm not sure if all the different colours and league names are necessary, it must makes the article look a bit child-like and messy. Shades of /black/grey/white look more clean and professional - maybe it's just me.

Ultimately, I'm being so stingy because the article is currently being reviewed for Wikipedia:Good articles status, and maybe, in the future, a possible: Wikipedia:Featured article status, though it's not yet at the required level of quality. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

But on the whole, it must've taken them ages to make this, unfortunately, they don't have a talk page, so I don't know how I can give them a Barnstar. It's amazing the articles finally got one, I feel awful for complaining.

If possible, maybe someone could suggest that he edits it, to a slightly similar format to @Eclectic Arkie. Because their format is brilliant and what nearly all English clubs consistently use. If not, maybe I should have ago. (Mine would probably look terrible though) But, honestly, thank you all so much. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph1891: - re point 1, that's because the second tier of English football has only been called the Championship since 2004, before that it was called the First Division. Same with League Two and the Third Division -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

oh ok Chris, I thought the Premier League was called the First Division before 1992? and Championship was called the Second Division etc.. Joseph1891 (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, technically the Premier League wasn't called anything before 1992 because it didn't exist, but if we think of it in terms of generic "tiers of English football" and consider the second tier specifically then there have been three distinct periods in terms of its name:

Up to 1992 - Second Division
1992-2004 - First Division
2004-present - Championship

This graph shows the appropriate name for the second tier for each of those periods -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently an SVG graph of Bath City F.C's seasons was added to the Bath City article, made by Richard Rundle. Which is amazing, and it's really helpful. Is it really that helpful- I find it almost unreadable because it has way too many abbreviations and violations of MOS:COLOUR by adding random colours without thinking about colour contrasts. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree, that is a mess. Spike 'em (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It's fairly hard to understand. I'm not sure if the article would be able to become a GA with that graph, as it's far just too convoluted. I was looking for something more like these graphs, (exactly like them) think they are easier to read and understand, and just generally look a lot cleaner, and more polished. (Grimsby, Bath and Notts County all wear black and white stripes - which is why I used them examples) Think it's best to stick with the same format. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As I noted above, the latest such graph from EclecticArkie is c:File:Barrow AFC League Performance.svg - which is coloured. Personally, I don't like the greyscale ones - the contrast between line and background isn't good, particularly in the lower tiers. For teams like Bath City who have never played in the Football League yet have been promoted and relegated several times, increasingly-deepening shades of grey would become almost black and the line would be invisible. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64

Fair point, but clearly two other editors believe it looks extremely messy, an opinion, that I (regrettably) share.

1) I know that personally you prefer that graph, but surely there's a valid reason as to why nearly every Football club in England lets Eclectic Arkie use the grey scale format and not Richards. I couldn't really imagine Manchester United or Liverpool using a graph with that many colours, labels etc.. or many other Wikipedia:Good articles, or Wikipedia:Featured articles. (A status that the Bath City F.C. article is aiming for in the long term)

2) I don't really understand what you mean by "the tiers going black" if you look at the graph to right, I would say that the shade of grey used for; "tier 5" is far from being "black". The lowest tier Bath ever played in was tier 7, and for only 3 years, so I couldn't see that being a huge issue. I would assume that Tier 1 could start on a lighter shade, and so on, making the lower tiers lighter in the process.

I was planning to do it myself, I had no idea someone was already making one, and again, I feel awful for complaining, but the graph is extremely convoluted, still he really deserves a Barnstar for his efforts, doesn't seem to have a page though.

I mean... at the end of the day it would be best if EclecticArkie could attempt it himself, though it doesn't seem like he wants to. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by it would be best if EclecticArkie could attempt it himself, though it doesn't seem like he wants to - the image c:File:Bath City FC League Performance.svg was created by EclecticArkie, who does have a talk page - more than one in fact, there is one here: User talk:EclecticArkie; and one at Commons: c:User talk:EclecticArkie. Nobody is stopping you from posting on either of those, and indeed, you have apparently made several posts to both pages recently. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I see.. maybe his name is Richard Rundle? If so bit of a mistake Joseph1891 (talk) Joseph1891 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Rundle is the webmaster of FCHD.co.uk, which the Bath one gives as the source of the data. He was not involved in creating the graph -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Is the graph EclecticArkie's own work? If so, he should be the author (not Richard Rundle), otherwise the image is not free to be hosted at Commons under cc-by-sa-4.0. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no graph on the page referenced, but the website does ask that it be recognised as the source of the data, which is I assume what EA is doing... Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Changing the colours of the sections is quite straight forward , just change the Example text parts. A black line on light colours works best: trying to have the line match the club colours is just decoration and if it makes the graph hard to read then set it to a plain, filled stroke. Spike 'em (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't see why we need colours/shades for each division anyway. Black line on a fully white background is perfectly fine, and easier to read than black line on dark colours/shades. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I have notepad ++, how do I get the image to actually show up, so I can see what I'm doing when coding? Joseph1891 (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply that I gave some days ago. All that you need to do is paste the path to the file (e.g. C:\Users\My-user-name\Pictures\test01.svg) into your browser's URL bar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "paste the path to the file" Joseph1891 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

See Path (computing). When you save a new file on your computer, you give it a name, and choose a folder to put it in. That folder is on a hard disk or a USB drive. In my example, C: is the drive, \Users\My-user-name\Pictures\ specifies a hierarchy of folders, and test01.svg is the filename. The whole thing iis a path. You paste this into the URL bar of your browser. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

It's done. Sorry for "inserting" resolved twice, just so happy Joseph1891 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Capitalisation of FIFA World Cup final

Hi guys, I took a look at a few of the previous FIFA World Cup final events, and they are all listed with a capital letter for the "final" part (see 2014 FIFA World Cup Final for instance). Is this suitable. I can't find sources that use this capitalisation - any thoughts? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Think that may be more common, we also have UEFA Euro 2020 Final, 2022 UEFA Champions League Final and UEFA Women's Euro 2022 Final as three of the most recent finals in European football. On the latter article I have mentioned, this source capitalises the f, as does this one from the Champions League final and this one from the first mentioned article but that is only a small percentage of all sources which have "final" in these titles. I'm inclined to get consensus to see if others agree with the article titles having the f capitalised or not. Thanks - Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's worth remembering they don't need to be consistent. I haven't seen any sources talking about the FIFA final being a proper noun. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a proper name and should be capitalised. Many of the WC Final articles are Good or Featured and it's never been raised as an issue there.Spike 'em (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is it a proper name though? It not being brought up prior isn't really pertinent. Aside from our usage, all of the sources refer to it as the "final". Example refs: [3], [4], [5], etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

For what I've noticed, the f gets capitalised when we get proper nouns before "final" but not with the example refs I have seen. I agree they probably should stay as they are per Spike 'em's response. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it matters. We've established a style and the reasons to deviate from it are as fair as the reasons to stick with it. This is just one of those things that are always going to happen on Wikipedia that I couldn't justify changing but I also couldn't justify reverting it if someone else changed it. Personally, these finals are not proper nouns, it's an event like 2022 United States House of Representatives elections so I wouldn't capitalise the f. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Luís Campos (football)

Hello, can someone please check that all the pictures on Luís Campos (football) are correctly licensed? I'm a bit skeptical about them, because they all seem to come from one Wikimedia editor and from different periods in time of Campos's life, and were all uploaded on the same day. This all points towards copyrighted images, but I would like someone to double-check for me because I try to WP:AGF. Paul Vaurie (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They're all copyvio. I've tagged them for speedy deletion at Commons, and the bot will remove the links from the article once the images are deleted, but if you want to remove them all yourself in the meantime, please do. Don't see how checking whether four high-quality images that suddenly appear on the same article comply with Wikipedia's and/or Commons' licensing rules would violate AGF, personally. Might just be that the uploader didn't know any better and would appreciate some advice... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The whole article is a massive COPYVIO, featuring very slightly reworded passages from the sources used. I'd nuke it back to the version before all the recent updates. Spike 'em (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've used Earwig's Copyvio Detector and ref 3 is the biggest part of the problem with how much copyvio exists and is used the most as well. I bet this version of the article will do if we are to solve the rest of the problem. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've used it again, another website results in another darker figure. This article should not read like that atm. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Done! Spike 'em (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the correct title?

Should this article UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final be renamed UEFA Women's Euro 1995 Final? What are other editors' thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you use "Template:RM" on Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final then the "other editors" can make their thoughts there and someone will either move or not move the article based on the consensus. I have an opinion on what this title should be however, I don't think discussing this here guarantees that the page will be moved. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I attached "Template:RM" on Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final.Footwiks (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Jordi Amat

If anyone watches this article on their watchlists they would notice the Indonesian nationality gets added in a couple of times since gaining Indonesian citizenship[6]. I still think it should be "Spanish professional footballer" at the top instead of listing both nationalities since Wikipedia doesn't have other footballers with at least two nationalities listed in these situations. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Naturalised citizens of Indonesia" being added as a category is fine, but that's about it. The player didn't "act" on his Indonesian nationality, having only represented Spain (and Catalonia) internationally. Otherwise, we'd also have to describe Messi as "Argentine-Spanish", which makes no sense. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is it just an IP adding it? ~~I noticed the edit history is crazy in the last few days. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection can help. If it's just IPs with the disruptive edits, basic protection should help.~~ I just requested page protection on it there. RedPatch (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

At it again. All IP addresses who have edited in 2022, including the blocked 180.252.100.239 are geolocated in Indonesia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report to AIV - and it if continues, request protection at RFPP. I'll sort. Giant Snowman 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Harvard–Yale soccer rivalry

Is this really a rivalry?? Doesn't seem on par with the Cambridge-Oxford boat race, but I am not sure. Govvy (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a whole pile of such articles in Category:College soccer rivalries in the United States. Is it just this one specifically that you think is not notable? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am just curious more, it's not like it's one of the top sports in America, I was wondering if a Harvard-Yale sports rivalry page might be more useful. Govvy (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It could be merged with Harvard–Yale football rivalry and Harvard–Yale hockey rivalry. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not with the American football one, that's huge. Maybe I need to let sleeping dogs lie. Govvy (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My own thought is that its overkill to have rivalry articles for every sport, Harvard and Yale are rivals in every sphere so really just an extension of that, and that goes for most if not all of the pairings. Gridiron football, fair enough to discuss separately, that is massive at college level so will be plenty of interest and sources but doubtful soccer and most other sports have the same specific grudge - maybe basketball, but not really hockey IMO, the big interest comes from Canada so it's not the same youth progression system. You can see on the hockey article that it's a short paragraph confirming they play each other every year and then a long list of results. The soccer article doesn't really do much better. Also worth pointing out that the athletes at US college level are essentially amateurs, although the structure surrounding some sports is certainly not. However, I guess I can easily just ignore this altogether and allow it to exist for whatever group may be interested (fairly small, I would have thought). But it could be argued it breaches WP:V and No Inherited Notability. Crowsus (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to any blanket solution that applies the same principle to all articles in that category - the Maryland-Virginia soccer rivalry is a much bigger deal than in other sports, since they are two of the most dominant soccer teams in the country and regional rivals and typically play every year, which they don't in other sports since Maryland left the ACC. On the other hand, a lot of the others in that category are indeed questionable at best. But best to examine them individually. It's also worth noting that a lot of the articles in that category already are about multi-sport rivalries, so no action would be necessary there. I'll also point out, although it's not particularly relevant to this project, that college hockey is a big deal in the US, or at least in parts of it. Junior hockey isn't as huge a deal as it is in Canada, but college hockey is the rough equivalent. And there are definitely rivalries in college hockey that don't exist in other sports, like The Beanpot. Again, not really relevant to this project but another reason every rivalry has to be considered individually. Smartyllama (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest all opinions are placed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard–Yale soccer rivalry, rather than here... Giant Snowman 22:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Football Supporters' Association and Football Supporters' Federation

Football Supporters' Association and Football Supporters' Federation have same official website

Football Supporters' Association: https://thefsa.org.uk/join
Football Supporters' Federation: www.fsf.org.uk/join on Official Facebook

www.fsf.org.uk/join redirect to https://thefsa.org.uk/join

I think that the two organizations were seems to be amalgamated into one.

If merger is right, We have to arrange two articles.

Footwiks (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think they are together, see this which has a headline of 'Football Supporters’ Federation Awards' but talks about the 'Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) awards'. I suggest a merge is proposed into Football Supporters' Association. Giant Snowman 10:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with Juventus U23 players

Juventus U23 play two competitions: the Serie C and the Coppa Italia Serie C. No stats portal we consider reliable includes Coppa Italia Serie C stats for its first two rounds.

This means there's no possibility to write such stats without using Trasfermarkt or making original researches. What do I put in Juventus U23's players stats tables? Dr Salvus 18:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't reference the stats, simply leave them out. Giant Snowman 18:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What about leaving [number of matches or goals 100% sure]+? For example, if the player has actually made 4 appearances, but only 3 of which are known, I'd put 3+. Dr Salvus 19:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can only source 3 Cup games, then simply put 3 in the stats table. Giant Snowman 19:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"The absence of proof is not proof of absence" (cit.). I can source 3 matches but he might've played 7. "3" would be a false information to avoid. 3+ makes the reader think that he played 3 or more matches. Dr Salvus 19:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And what reliable sources do you have to make the reader think he played more than 3? None. Giant Snowman 20:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The fact that a cup competition is not included in the stats table, despite the club having participated in it. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Does Juventus U23 not have a website that publishes match reports with lineups? or are there no RS media covering their matches? It's standard practice with English non-league players, where Soccerway lists the team's matches but only has lineups for later rounds of competitions, to use either the club website match reports or newspaper reports. As at e.g. Alex Purver. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, will do.

Unnecessary note: Juventus U23 is their former name. Their current name is Juventus Next Gen, which I always avoid to use as it's cacophonic for Italian speakers imo. Juventus' name and structures have names of Latin or Greek origin (Juventus, Juventus Stadium, J-Medical, Juventus Museum etc.). Why should there be the word "next" which is of Germanic origin? Even "under" is of Germanic origin but it's perfectly integrated into the Italian sporting language. Dr Salvus 23:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

shows how unnotable juve u23 is tbh.Muur (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Muur, what about stopping writing this and open an AfD if you really think it's unnotable? Dr Salvus 04:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for those matches, there's nothing wrong with having a combination of sources. I did that once for a early rounds for another country's cup matches. Found the game report from the country's federation page since soccerway only started counting from round 3. RedPatch (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do have them, but I thought it could be a kind of OR. Dr Salvus 21:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not, it's a routine calculation. You have the sources for each match that he played and you add them together to get the total. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Distinta

In matches, companies have to compile and provide a document containing the called up players, the linesman (in amateur football) and the coach's personal data. In Italy this is called "Distinta". How's this called in English? Dr Salvus 09:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"Team sheet" (although I have never heard of one containing the coach's personal data) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I am thinking of..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There would be a more precise version of what I'm talking about. I have a photo of that version of the team sheet but I'm afraid I can't publish it because it contains sensitive information. Dr Salvus 10:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I eat what I said. Team sheets only have the coach's name. Dr Salvus 10:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, a distinta (lista, programma) is more like the media pack that is given. In the UK the media pack will contain the match programme, a booklet or sheet with the team sheet, match facts, head to head, lots of information that a commentator, press reporter can use when they commentate or write in their report. Regards Govvy (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. If you look at a distinta sheet, you'll see its title is "Distinta elenco giocatori", "Team sheet list [of] players".

If it didn't have sensititve info, I would show one. Dr Salvus 14:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't know about you, but for the AC Milan Tottenham game in Milan, I've got the media pack titled "Pacchetto multimediale" with a distinta attached. So that's where I am coming from. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

When I play in Terza Categoria each Sunday, we're asked to give to the referee an identity document. Team sheets have players and company linesman's number, date of birth, name, surname and the identity document code. Coaches don't have their date of birth written in the document. When a player doesn't have a numbered shirt, he's given the number O, 00, 000, etc. I can say this since I am also the secretary of my team, so I can compile these documents.

~~Is the same done in England? Dr Salvus 21:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)~~

what on earth has this to do with writing/improving Wikipedia articles? There are plenty of other places to discuss this as WP:NOTFORUM. Spike 'em (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I always fall for it... Dr Salvus 21:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Oluclen and sort templates

See this dif. For whatever reason, Oluclen seems intent on removing the sort templates from the recent call-ups latest match parameter. The sort template allows the "Latest call-up" column to correctly sort by date, not alphabetically by nation. Their edit summary, which is really indicative of their modus operandi on the Italy national football team article, is the following: standard template restored again — it means that this page should use the same template used by all the similar national teams pages on Wikipedia. "Standard" is very arbitrary; just because other articles do (or don't) do something doesn't mean we should follow suit. I have tried communicating with them on their talk page multiple times but have yet to receive an answer. Just as a side note, they have already been blocked for uncooperative behaviour before. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Small note: "Oluclen" is an Italian swear word backwards. Not sure if this violates Wikipedia's guidelines on usernames. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 10:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Would be curious to know from what swear word this comes from. Dr Salvus 11:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The swear word is very implicit and I couldn't guess although I'm Italian. (I hadn't read the word "backwards" because I was very distracted). Dr Salvus 12:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added this sorting to the England page, thanks for the reminder, as I'd got annoyed by this in the past! Spike 'em (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest this guy is very annoying. Does anyone remember when he used an escamotage (using an IP adress) to violate the 3R rule? Dr Salvus 12:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Check this ANI discussion. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They are still removing the template without any reason (and without discussing here, on their talk page or on the Italy national team talk page), despite Spike 'em and I's efforts to explain via edit summaries. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

2-day block expires today, let's see what happens when they return. Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Terri or Terry

Should Terri Springett be spelt Terry Springett as I have seen two different spellings of this English footballer. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Either way, I think one should redirect to the other. – Pee Jay 11:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Cristian Volpato

An IP user is not reading my edit summaries and is continuing edit-warring. Then, to avoid violating the 3RR, he's used another IP. Dr Salvus 09:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the edit in question. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The guy has done it again. How should I act? Dr Salvus 11:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Request page protection and/or report the IP. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't warned any of the two IPs. Better requesting it be protected. Dr Salvus 12:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Which is the correct spelling?

Is Soffía Arnþrúður Gunnarsdóttir or Soffíu Arnþrúði Gunnarsdóttur the correct spelling of this Icelandic footballer? Dwanyewest (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I think one is nominative case and the other is genitive case. Use the one with the father's name with the genitive case and the player's name with the nominative case. Dr Salvus 23:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right that the first is nominative and the second genitive, but I don't think there's any scenario in English that you would use the genitive version, she should always be referred to as Soffía in English (note that per {{Icelandic name}} she should go by her first name, not the patronymic). BigDom (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

BigDom (talk) so should Soffíu Arnþrúði Gunnarsdóttur just be redirected into Soffía Arnþrúður Gunnarsdóttir ? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see any harm in having a redirect. Per WP:R#KEEP, a redirect like this seems to meet criteria 2, 5 and 6 IMO. BigDom (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

But it'd be a grammatical mistake an Icelandic speaker would never make. Dr Salvus 00:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

But this is English-language wikipedia - a non-Icelandic speaker could see the genitive version Soffíu Arnþrúði Gunnarsdóttur online and not realise it referred to the same person, or not know which version was the correct one (such as the OP who asked here). If there's a redirect and they look for that version on Wiki, it makes sense to redirect to the proper (nominative case) version. BigDom (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't have redirects at Gareth Southgate's or at Harry Kane's - yet those are genitives. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What a strange argument. 1) It's hardly the same, comparing English possessives (calling them "genitives" is a pretty niche view) that have just have one form to the various inflections for gender and number in Icelandic and other languages that actually have a genitive case. 2) Just because something doesn't exist in one case doesn't mean it shouldn't in another (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). 3) The guideline on redirects that I already linked to (WP:R#KEEP) says that if someone finds it useful even if you don't, that's a good enough reason to have a redirect. That seems to hold true for the OP here and others like them who aren't linguists. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Where were the non-nominative case name and the father's non-genitive name found? Dr Salvus 10:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For a start UEFA Women's Euro 2013 squads used the second form (as a red-link) in the prose at the top. It referenced a now dead page, but the archive shows that is uses the second form. I guess this is the correct use of the genitive case in Icelandic, that an English-speaking editor has not recognised? Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't speak Icelandic but maybe they might be two different players? Dr Salvus 11:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so: the link text says Soffíu Arnþrúði Gunnarsdóttur, but if you follow it, the name on the archived player profile is Soffía Arnþrúður Gunnarsdóttir. Spike 'em (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Icelandics don't take grammatical cases seriously. I support the creation of the redirect. Dr Salvus 12:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Redirect created, as it's a plausible search term. Regardless of whether or not it's grammatically correct, people could search for this term, as most English speakers won't understand genitive cases. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But I'd do it for every name that could be confused, expecially with the accusative case. Maybe this should be added at WP:REDIRECT. Dr Salvus 12:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The link above makes me realise we´ve been slightly mistaken so far - Soffíu Arnþrúði Gunnarsdóttur is actually accusative case; the translation is "In her [Katrín's] place, Sigurður has selected Soffía Arnþrúdur Gunnarsdóttir of Stjarnan" - she is the direct object of a verb (valið, past participle of velja "to choose") which takes accusative case. Looking it up, the genitive would be Soffíu Arnþrúðar Gunnarsdóttur (as seen here [7]). It just turns out that for weak feminine nouns the forms of the two cases are identical. In my opinion, this only highlights how useful it is to have redirects from these kind of inflected forms, and I agree with Dr Salvus that more widespread creation of these would be beneficial to Wikipedia. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Canada v Mexico, is this notable?

I made a draft for the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualifying match between Canada and Mexico. Would this match be notable enough for its own article? RedBlueGreen93 (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it notable? Doesn't even seem to have changed anything. Regardless of the match, both teams qualified for the World Cup, and it was a solid bet that they (together with USA) would be the qualifiers so not even shocking turn of events. --SuperJew (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that it isn't notable. The coverage and reaction seems to just be what matches around the world get week-in-week-out. You could write an article just as detailed about pretty much any game in the top 4 (maybe even 5) divisions in England, for example. BigDom (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The match was cold and it ended Mexico's streak. I'm not quite seeing how this had as big an impact culturally within those countries or on world football in general. I hate to say it, but I don't think it would be. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there could be an article about Environmental conditions in association football matches, where Bolivia's home record etc could be discussed.--Echetus Xe 11:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Should World Cup tables imply that some teams have pre-qualified for the knockout stage?

Should World Cup tables imply that some teams have pre-qualified for the knockout stage? Discuss it here. — AjaxSmack 16:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this. Hopefully, we can search this category to easily find articles that need work. Should we only add these to articles where a BEFORE search indicates there is no SIGCOV, or should we add them to articles that currently lack sourcing but we know there is (or is likely to be) sourcing available? Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The latter; editors are encouraged to search for sources before adding the template but there is no requirement to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, if you've done a BEFORE, AfD is probably the right location, not simply tagging it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Usually, but editors may suspect there are offline sources available. BilledMammal (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll have to figure out how to filter this category to only reflect football-related articles as it includes all types of sports articles. Jogurney (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Merger notice US World Cup Coverage

Just want to put notice to the Project I’ve put a merge proposal for ABC’s coverage of the World Cup and NBC’s coverage of the World Cup.

Please note, this isn’t the merge discussion, you can find that on TALK:FIFA World Cup on NBC#Merger proposal Jo Jc Jo (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:LGBT association football players from the United Kingdom

I am confused by this category, is it suppose to be concurrent why athletes are playing or to encompass after the career in football also? And if I am honest, I feel it's long-winded and we don't really need a category for this. Thoughts people? Govvy (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem? What do you mean encompassing after the career in football? Do you think people become gay/lesbian? And what's long-winded about a category with 9 pages? --SuperJew (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Why LGBT association football players, football doesn't make a person gay, lesbian. The title of that category is long, are people really going to use that category? It all just seems odd. Are you going to have Category:Straight association football players in the United Kingdom. :/ Its just a bad way of labelling with a category that I just don't think we should do. Govvy (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's part of a huge category tree: Category:LGBT sportspeople -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the merit of whether the category should exist or not, but football doesn't make a person gay, lesbian doesn't really make sense. It's like saying that we should delete Category:Italian footballers because football doesn't make a person Italian. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality makes more sense, that title doesn't have a concurrency issue. Govvy (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "concurrency"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that it's to do with coming out as LGBT during their playing career (which for some can be a career-killer) as against only becoming known as LGBT after they stopped playing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would say this is a matter for WikiProject LGBT studies. If they think the latter is useful then the category is justified. They have categories for sports people by country and by sport, and four for association football by country. The nine articles in the UK category clearly needs expanding. There are several from the England women's team missing. — Jts1882 | talk 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the massive tree rooted at

LGBT people by nationality and occupation

I would say that this is a case of WP:TRIVIALCAT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Tom Morris (footballer, died 1942)

He was born in 1875, should the article not be moved to his birth year? Govvy (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have moved it. Presumably it was only named like that because when it was created his birth date was not known -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Cheers.

Govvy (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Serhiy Nazarenko

Hi folks. If anyone is interested in some cleanup work, Serhiy Nazarenko is a good place to go. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup lead and controversy section

Could we get some additional eyes on the lead and controversy sections for the tournament? Especially since the tournament is now active, the edit-warring and debate about what to include in the lead and the controversy section is starting to get out of hand. Jay eyem (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Can't we trim down the controversy section or remove altogether and link to the separate page? It's too long relative to the article IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Juventus reserve team wins prior to Juventus U23 foundation

A kind of Juventus U23 predecessor existed from 1904 to 1976. Their most important achievements were a Seconda Categoria win in 1905, a second place in 1904 and a Campionato de Martino win in 1959–60. I've included these achievements at the History section ("Predecessors" section) but I don't know whether I should insert them in the "Honours" section. Dr Salvus 08:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Juventus II (1904–1976) and Juventus Next Gen (2018–present) are two separate teams. It's fine to include this info in the history section, but not in the honours. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 09:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I've only managed to find these achievements: first place in Seconda Categoria (1905), second place in Seconda Categoria (1904), third place in Seconda Categoria (1906, not written in the article), first place in the Campionato de Martino (1959–60). Probably, it's impossible to find further info, who cared on reserve teams after WW1? I hope that's not a big problem for the page. Dr Salvus 21:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Group stage may need updating

I removed the over-linking to the Group pages, in some of the Year FIFA World Cup pages. However, I wasn't able to do so with the 1954, 2014, 2018 & 2022 pages, as they're transcluded. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not overlinking, score links are intended to direct readers directly to the full details of the relevant match. The links are included in a table, and per MOS:DL, links "may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". S.A. Julio (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Argentina–Brazil football rivalry

Could someone take a look at Argentina–Brazil football rivalry? There's been over 100 edits in the last couple of weeks, and they mostly appear to be from the same IP range, and I'm afraid some accuracy has been compromised but I'm not an expert on the topic. Thanks you in advance. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, looks like some copypasta has taken place because there's citation numbers typed out where <ref> tags should be. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the last food version (i.e. the last by a trusted editor) and then cleaned up slightly. Giant Snowman 19:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I think this edit is the one that took out all the cites and replaced with copy-paste. I can try to restore the cites but ugh. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Good spot - I have re-added most, some deliberately left out, others I will no doubt have missed! Giant Snowman 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I wanted to wait until I had a bigger screen to work with. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 23:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup riots

Is this really suitable? I'm thinking this is likely a WP:NOTNEWS deal, but at the very least should have a name change, as it's not a series of riots taking place at the World Cup. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

As if we don't have enough controversies in this competition already.

At this point, I don't see this is a notable event for it's own article but things will become worse as minutes pass.

Things may become more clear if we should keep it as it's own article or have the content as part of the main article or the list of controversies one. I'll wait and see what others think. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see this in anyway notable. There was hooliganism in the Canary Islands after Wales Vs England and similarly that’s not included.

Hooliganism is a feature of most international football competitions at some point and until hooliganism becomes a defining feature of this World Cup, which I doubt it will, then I don’t think it is worth including. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I've AfD'd. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDAVOID

Hi all, I hope you are well. Just a reminder that WP:BOLDAVOID exists, and what with the World Cup being on there's a lot of some good faith editing believing articles should have bold in the lede sentence. As a tl;Dr, article ledes should not be written to try and shoehorn in the actual article titles, only the article title should be bolded (and if it doesn't exist as such, it should have no bolding), and we shouldn't be bolding wikilinks. There's been a lot of edit warring on the multiple child World Cup articles, such as the 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Tomrtn FYI- as you have been adding the bold recently. This explains it better than my note on your talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And to counter the "that's how other articles do it" arguement, I'm working my way back through the previous editions (as far as 2006 groups so far). Spike 'em (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Patrick Nuamah

Hello everyone!

I don't know if this is the right place to ask for help, but if possible, I would like to ask for assistance on one of my most recent drafts, please... I believe it has reached the minimum criteria of relevance and coverage, but it hasn't got an official review, yet, in contrast to other works of mine. Of course, I'd be very happy to receive useful suggestions to improve that piece of work further, too.

Oltrepier (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on @RedPatch Thank you so much for your help, I appreciate it. Oltrepier (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Ref #4 appears to be a dead link, so I think I would just remove it, since there's another reference beside it. I tried to see if they changed the url, but couldn't find a different one on the site, and there didn't seem to be an archive-url for it at archive.org. I think it's ready for mainspace, given I fell it meets GNG. RedPatch (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace. Paul W (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@RedPatch Yes, it definitely makes sense, and it's pretty strange that we couldn't find a single copy of that link on Wayback Machine...

But anyhow, thank you all for your help and your support! Oltrepier (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Real name of Ahmed Al-Sarori

Hello! Please check Talk:Ahmed Al-Sarori#Family name. Thank you, Horcrux (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleting content to keep things the same across articles

Hi all, wanted some feedback - I've been working on 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B, with a plan to take some of these items to GA next year. I've been reverted several times removing content summary from the lede just to keep it consistent across articles (see diff=1124848035). I don't understand why we would want to have all of the articles the same, if that means not including a suitable summary of the information in the article (which would be necessary at GA). Do you guys have any thoughts as to why we would want to delete such a summary? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

ping to @Island92:. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead is just a summary. We don't need to report excessive details how matches went on. The main summary of the group is this, not the lead.--Island92 (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a summary of the article. You don't think the name of the game being played is important? You also don't think that the positions that the teams ended up is relevant information for the lede? Your arguments of WP:OSE aren't sensible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That is sensible as well, but just a prose such as Both England and the United States progressed from the group to the round of 16 undefeated. England won the group, winning two and drawing the other game, whilst the United States won one game and drew their other two. Iran finished the group third having won a single game, with Wales finishing fourth with a single point I find it useless for the article. Just below there are summaries how matches were played and their results.--Island92 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A 2,148 word article needs more than three sentences as a lead.--Echetus Xe 21:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. A lede is supposed to be a full summary of the article - saying you can read something in the body is kinda missing the point. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I thinks Lee's version is more informative, and rigidity sticking to the formulation used in other articles stifles article improvement. Spike 'em (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

We're getting the exact same WP:OSE argument at Special:Diff/1124969263. It makes no sense to blindly add the same text to other articles, rather than writing something readable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Kyproulla Loizou worth making?

Is Kyproulla Loizou worth making she did win the FA Cup, here are the sources Football mad pair are a perfect match | The Times , BBC SPORT | Football | Kyproulla Loizou Dwanyewest (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think. Dr Salvus 23:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Winning titles for managers

Is there any consensus regarding adding or not adding the winning league or cup titles for managers who didn't finish the winning season with the team? Especially in the case when the team was already leading the league, and the manager joined a bigger club, or national team, or stepped down due to health or something else? (i.e. was not sacked). --BlameRuiner (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Do reliable sources say the manager has the honour? That is what we should be using, not assumptions. Giant Snowman 10:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Change in behaviour for "team of the season" tables

Has anyone else noticed change in the behaviour of tables used to show "Teams of the season", such as in 2021–22 Premier League#Annual awards? On any up to date browser I use, it now appears as if it is a 5 column table rather than a 13 column one, and I'm not sure when things changed. It would appear it is browser / html issue, as I can replicate using a simple html file. I have a server that has an old version of Chrome and on that (and also in a legacy install of IE) it appears as it used to. I've created a test in my sandbox to hopefully illustrate / trial a solution. Does anyone have any knowledge of this, and if so, will adding a collapsed row have any effect / be visible anywhere? Spike 'em (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Gianluca Ferrero

He will become Juventus' president on 18 January 2023. When he got the job, he received lots of coverage but he was unknown before. Should his article exist? Dr Salvus 13:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If he can pass GNG, then why not Ortizesp (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sports table updates by SportsStatsBot

User:DatGuy has been developing SportsStatsBot to automatically update football league table from the given source. I've had a couple of back-and-forths with them over test edits at 2022-23 Championnat National which have left the table out of step - either with a date parameter claiming it is up to date when it isn't, or vice versa.

The latest edit, [8] is, presumably, an attempt to compromise on keeping the date aligned with the current date whilst reflecting there are still matches taking place/due to take place that day. I think it's unnecessary, and I'm frankly a bit fed up of one of the articles I enjoy editing being used for this sort of guinea-piggery.

So I'm seeking community opinion and input here. Cheers. Gricehead (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure that there is a rule or other convention that we only update league tables when all of a day's matches have concluded. Wikipedia is not a news feed, after all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There will always be a trigger-happy IP that would, no doubt in good faith, trump that convention (if it existed) so it would be pointless to try and enforce.

Also, if at 2pm a league table is updated to include the results of a match that kicked-off at 12pm so the date parameter then reads as today, I don't think people will assume that it includes the results of matches which haven't kicked off. It would also be correct per the sources assuming they are updated after each match (which won't be the case for lower leagues or smaller nations). If at 8.30pm, the results of earlier matches have been added and a match has kicked-off at 7.45pm, I think it would be reasonable that some readers may think the table is showing live updates if the date parameter shows today's date. Per WP:LIVESCORES that won't be the case but, to avoid confusion, I would have no qualms with a time stamp being added to show it was updated before the match in question had kicked off. That particular edit you've highlighted, Gricehead, shouldn't be a thing because the table hasn't been updated if no matches have happened. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@DatGuy: asked that this be copied here, in this diff:[9] The (X of Y matches played) is there because I saw it used in the PL table with no objections. I didn't make it up. As for the diff, the bot wouldn't make an edit only changing the date. The edit occured because the data was changed in the reference, and the position was therefore updated to match. DatGuyTalkContribs 19:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate level of detail for cup final articles

This stems from an active FAC for MLS Cup 1999, where a reviewer has a hang-up about the use of the "Road/Route to the final" section to describe the regular season and playoffs and wants project members to provide some feedback. Personally, I think it's necessary (especially in the context of American soccer) to have such a section be fleshed out and comprehensive, as there aren't good resources elsewhere that provide sufficient context. I've set it up so that the Match summary has the same number of paragraphs as the regular season summaries for both finalists, which I feel is a fair compromise. Any thoughts? Sounder Bruce 05:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

To add my two cents (I'm the reviewer SounderBruce is referring to): the article is about the final match of the playoffs -- i.e. this is not an article about the whole postseason, just about one match. There are two to three fairly detailed paragraphs given for the previous year for each team. For example, for the Galaxy the article mentions that before the 1999 season the captain was traded away; gives the resume of the coach they acquired in April; and mentions standout performances by individuals or groups of players at several points. I think the summarization of the earlier playoff games is fine, but given that another article will cover the overall 1999 MLS playoffs, the detail should go there, not in an article about the final match of the playoffs. Like SounderBruce I'd like to hear other opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And to add my opinion: in American sports, anything after the final match of the season falls under the auspices of the next season, so the winter transfer window and preseason are all to be considered part of it. I'd also be opposed to moving this information into an article about the playoffs, as all participating teams and all matches would need a summary of similar size and depth, which would cause the article to be too long to handle. By concentrating the details on the finalists' seasons in the final article, appropriate context can be easily found by readers without congesting other articles. Sounder Bruce 02:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything wrong with the team season summaries in that article. It summarises what would be contained at 1999 Los Angeles Galaxy season (if it existed) and 1999 D.C. United season (if it's updated). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

For comparison I looked at 2018 EFL League Two play-off Final, which is a featured article. As with an MLS season, the entire previous season is relevant as the league position is what gets you into the play-offs. There's a "Route to the final" section, but it says nothing about the season's play, position during the season, hot or cold streaks, injuries, or managerial changes. This seems to me a strictly comparable article but it takes quite a different approach. Pinging the nominators of that FAC, Amakuru and The Rambling Man, to see if they have comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hot/cold streaks (whatever they are) should be dealt with in the individual season articles for each club, not the article about the play-off final. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I also note nearly twice as many words being devoted to the Match as to the Route. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'll have a look in more detail in the next few days, and maybe do a review. At first glance I don't think the section is particularly excessive. Giving info about what the tournament is and previous occurrences is part of what I'd expect in an FAC, although I would have that in an initial "Background" section rather than in Road to the Final, as per 1998 FIFA World Cup Final. There's a few things I might chop such as the mention of international players being reduced, but by-and-large it seems OK. — Amakuru (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yellow and red cards prior to the 1970 World Cup

Prior to that World Cup, players would never get a card. They would generally be admonished or expelled verbally. Why are there still red cards in articles talking on matches prior to 1970? Dr Salvus 09:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If an icon is needed to indicate that a player was booked or sent off, what else would you suggest.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The card icon is just a symbol. The act of cautioning or dismissing a player has never changed, and while it's anachronous to use red and yellow card icons prior to 1970, it's a symbol that helps modern readers understand what's going on. – Pee Jay 11:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Were cautions routinely recorded before the introduction of cards? Hack (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Serie A Player of the Month

Can anyone chronologically sort the table. I am not able to. Dr Salvus 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The table was written with {{dts}} for the month then what was supposed to be hidden sortkeys. Wikipedia would sort that by month first then remaining text (i.e. all January entries, then February, etc.). I moved the sortkeys to before the dts templates, so it should properly sort now. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If it was written with {{dts}}, it shouldn't need any hidden sortkeys in addition. The point about dts is that it generates sortkeys. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, one of the <span>...</span> tags or the {{dts}} should be removed. Given the reason the year isn't included in the {{dts}} is to allow a link to the season can be made, |format=hide should be used so that dts just generates the sort key and the month is typed out manually next to the link to the seasonal article. I'm also not sure why the same anchor is being generated multiple times on different rows. Spike 'em (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned out the dts, feel free to revert to a hidden dts and remove the spans. Spike 'em (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I look at that article and wonder why we need it, the information will be on the Serie A season articles and player articles. Why need a third?? This just seems pointless, unnecessary content forking, and a WP:NOSTATS issue. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Dispute resolution help: Do we include defunct teams without a successor (i.e. East Germany) in "Overall team records" table?

We have a disagreement at FIFA World Cup records and statistics that has resulted in getting the page locked. I'd appreciate if members of the community could chime in with their views so we can reach a consensus and get the page unlocked before the next WC matches on 9 Dec. Thanks! Wburrow (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

i dont see why they shouldnt. if man united suddenly died, you wouldn't remove their 19 titles from the count of most titles thatd be even sillier than football starting in 1992.Muur (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, countries that don't exist anymore shouldn't be in the same table with countries that can still get points, it doesn't make sense. The "Former countries" section has been working for years, I don't see a reason to change it. It looks more clean. Obviously this is not about removing medals from countries, we aren't talking about the medal table. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Muur Manchester United have won 20 titles? Joseph1891 (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW the amount of flags on that article is absolutely insane - is it really necessary to have the Brazilian flag appear next to the name of the team over 140 times? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Chris, the flags used on it, overkill! Kinda does my eyes in! Govvy (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The tables showing which teams from each confederation have competed at each tournament look like massive MOS:FLAG violations too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A real flagfest over there. Kante4 (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

In general, I think "lots of flags" is mostly an unavoidable byproduct of compiling a bunch of stats related to a competition where the teams represent nations (see also: any Olympics stats page). Personally, I love flags, and "lots of flags" is probably a big part of what drew me to editing these pages. That being said, I agree that the tables showing which teams from each confederation have competed at each tournament is overkill. Thanks for pointing out MOS:FLAG. I'm always reluctant to undo changes people make that obviously took some time and effort, so I had been leaving that alone, but with the MOS to point to, I'll change the flag lists back to numbers. Wburrow (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think more French women's football seasons should be created

I would like to create 1974–75 Division 1 Féminine does anyone think these links are enough to justify a wikipedia article?Foot féminin : elle a fait partie de la première équipe de France - Le Parisien , Histo - Le Stade de REIMS, premier champion de France il y a 40 ans (footofeminin.fr) , "Cabbage stews to 400 people to finance themselves": in Quimper, 51 years of women's football (ouest-france.fr) , Women's football: the age of "Girl power"! (marianne.net) Dwanyewest (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you join WP:WOSO and you can get advice there too :) --SuperJew (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to start another "It's called soccer/football" thing but...

I'm wondering if WP:ENGVAR dictates that the introduction in 2010 FIFA World Cup should be changed to:

The 2010 FIFA World Cup, also branded as South Africa 2010, was the 19th FIFA World Cup, the world championship for men's national soccer teams.

And similarly in 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup:

The 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup is scheduled to be the ninth edition of the FIFA Women's World Cup competition, the quadrennial international women's football championship contested by the women's national association football teams organised by FIFA.

All three host nations use the old Britishism "soccer" as the shorthand for "association football" and it seems pretty well established that we use the English variation used in the host countries (plus it looks like Tvx1 changed "association football" to "football" unilaterally in the 2010 WC article and isn't following WP:BRD). I feel like our guidelines are pretty clear on this but it'll be controversial anyway, so I wanted to reach some sort of consensus here. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't fully considered the ENGVAR angle, but yes, I'd support formalising this. I did look into the history of the 2010 World Cup and couldn't figure out why it was different (the only one to previously use "association football" in lead). There is a threatened / suggested RfC brewing on this anyway, but I'd follow ENGVAR as the default. Spike 'em (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the 2010 world cup was held in South Africa, where they call it soccer, but it's a global event, so I don't think WP:TIES applies. I would honestly just go with "association football" for all world cups..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with ChrisTheDude that making TIES arguments are a bit superfluous. It's not as though people are confused as to what "association football" is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you'd be surprised how little the term "association football" is used in common parlance.T v x1 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with making it "association football" across the board, even if that's not COMMONNNAME anywhere in the world. My thinking is that it should either me all "association football" or use the local term, but it should be consistent either way. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

All the "local" term is the most logical thing to do if you ask me. I'm not certain as to which is the primary term in South Africa. Soccer does appear to be used as well, but then again their national FA is called the South African Football Association and its article uses "football" throughout.T v x1 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not changing anything unilaterally. I reverted an undiscussed and unilateral change from what it had been for years to the last stable version. And your assessment of ENGVAR for this case isn't really correct either. If we'd follow ENGVAR we'd have "soccer" for articles on America-hosted editions and "football" for editions hosted in almost the entire rest of the world. Also, soccer isn't a "Britishism", it's an "Americanism". Brits use football. T v x1 16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1 I think you're mistaken about the edit history of 2010 WC article. The change to "football" was fairly recent. I'm not sure where you getting the "what it had been for years" thing because here's an edit from 2014. So sorry, I was wrong about you make an unilateral edit, but Nori2001 didn't seek consensus for changing to "football" and it was correct for 1995hoo to revert it back to "association football". Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's weird to call "soccer" an Americanism when the phrase is obviously a turn-of-the-century English slang that's widely used in Ireland, Australia and Japan. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It's most widely used in the Americas (Canada, the US, and Mexico in particular) though and that's why I called it as such. The word gained its popularity in Japan from these Americans as well during WO II. The actual Japanese name for the sport is shūkyū, which means "kick-ball".T v x1 17:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to get too far off into tangent, but "shūkyū" is used even less than "association football". I call it a Britishism half jokingly, but also because it was a very late 19th-century British thing to shorten a word and then add "-er" at the end (i.e. "rugger" for rugby). Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course it isn’t used in English language, but it is the word in Japanese language. They don’t use a translation of “association football”. Anyway, Japan has little meaning to this discussion as English is not a native language there. T v x1 23:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Your link to the 2014 edit puzzles me. It shows an edit removing a picture, which has nothing to do with this.T v x1 17:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tvx1 I was responding to your claim, "I reverted an undiscussed and unilateral change from what it had been for years." It's clearly not the case – until it was piped to "football" on November 20, "association football" had been there for at least 8 years. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to using "association football" for all the FIFA World Cup tournaments, in place of "football" & "soccer". GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Because of a few incorrect, absolute claims made by some editors here, I think it's important to point out that, for Australia, Wikipedia has a formal policy on naming - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). In simple terms, it says the game is to be called soccer in any articles about the game there. So, it's not just America. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about fully international events though, so I'm not really sure we should be targeting wording towards the hosts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s not a formal policy, it’s a guideline according to the box on top of it. No-one claimed soccer is only used in the Americas. If Australia were ever to organize the World Cup, its article should use soccer throughout.T v x1 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

2023 FIFA Women's World Cup, for example.

. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Differing goal scorer issue

Hey guys, really minor issue here and one that I don't think anyone will care about, but I've noticed that Fiji Football has listed the Henderson Eels vs Kossa FC match with Adrian Mara scoring two, however this post from the S-League's Facebook page and this video from FIFA's website shows Raphael Lea'i scoring a hat-trick. I doubt anyone cares enough, but I'm going with the S-League and FIFA over Fiji Football (which is normally a great source otherwise).

I've taken the "executive decision" here to show Le'ai as the hat-trick scorer. Basically just wanted input if anyone thinks otherwise. - J man708 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe add a note explaining the discrepancy in case anyone wants to change it back. RedPatch (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hannes Löhr

User:superSkaterDude45 insists to add the state to the birthplace in the infobox, see [10]. I think that this is against Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. Just because there are examples where this was done in some other football player's infoboxes (the editor lists Wolfgang Weber and Jürgen Grabowski), this doesn't make it right (see WP:Otherstuffexists). Any opinions on that? 11:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's over detail and not needed. Giant Snowman 11:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Should be removed. Kante4 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

History of non-League football and the tier system before 1979.. did tiers exist?

There is an ongoing debate between myself and one other editor on the tier system within non-League football before the formation of the Alliance Premier League in 1979, or, according to them, if it even existed. The person I've been debating hasn't provided any sources to support their claim that: "No tiers existed at all within non-League before 1979." Maybe they're right -- I guess that's what I'm checking.

For simplicity, this discussion will be focused on the history of southern clubs within non-League football, though may still include some northern clubs.

Am I right right in believing that, from the leagues inception until 1979:

1) The Southern League acted as step one of the non-league pyramid?

2) The Southern League was viewed as a 'secondary' to the football league?

3) The Southern League essentially acted as one tier below the lowest of the football league?

e.g. In 1967, below the fourth division, was the Southern League premier, essentially making if the fifth tier, equivalent to the National League?

I've seen clubs (e.g. Ebbsfleet United, Cheltenham Town, Macclesfield Town, Morecambe, Gloucester City, Fleetwood Town) portray the Southern League, (and Northern League) as tier 5 before 1979. and even tier 4 before 1958.

Here are just some of the sources I have used to gain and support this:

[11] -- In 1920, via the official Southern League website; "The Southern League fist division became the Third Division of the Football League"

[12] -- "Most of the top teams in the Southern League joined the Football League over the next few years. In 1920 virtually the entire top division of the Southern League was absorbed by the Football League to become the league's new Third Division. A year later this became the Third Division South."

[13] -- "In 1920, virtually the entire top division of the Southern League was absorbed by the Football League to become that league's new Third Division. A year later the Third Division was expanded and regionalised. The Third Division clubs from the previous season became the Third Division South, with the addition of the Third Division North.

[14] -- "In 1971, League secretary Alan Hardaker held talks with the Southern and Northern Premier Leagues about the possible foundation of an `Alliance`, essentially the fifth division, yet nothing materialised – yet!"

[15]

[16] In 1969, -- A Fifth division of the football league for the top Northern and Southern League clubs?

"Clubs could get elected to the Football League from any league outside it (or even none in the case of a few)" -- fellow editor... I'm not sure if this is true for southern teams.

As this source suggests [17], only clubs from the top level of non-League. (e.g. Southern League for southern teams) could get elected to the football league.

I've also personally asked many elders in real life and they seem to support the claim that the Southern league/Northern Leagues essentially acted as the fifth tier before the formation of the Alliance Premier League.

I'd really appreciative some help on this matter.

Thanks. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

No, tiers didn't exist before 1979 and the Southern League was not step 1 (there were no steps). Some leagues were regarded as stronger than others (with the Southern League widely regarded as the strongest in southern England), but there were no formal tiers. As I pointed out here, the claim that "only clubs from the top level of non-League. (e.g. Southern League for southern teams) could get elected to the football league" is not true. Numerous clubs from within the Southern League footprint but who were not members of the Southern League, applied for Football League membership. Number 5 7 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not really indicated in many sources, however the start of the football pyramid (tier system) effectively started with the second division in 1892–93 where as to be promoted between the two tier leagues. Regards. Govvy (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Before 1979, there was the Football League, which since the 1950-51 season had comprised 92 professional teams. All of the other teams (professional, semi-pro and amateur) were grouped together under the blanket of "non-league football", although many of them played in organised leagues with regular fixtures, and several of these leagues were very old, such as the Southern League.

At the end of each season, the four teams that finished at the bottom of the Football League were required to seek re-election for membership; and non-league teams could also apply for membership. But for a non-league team to be elected, it was normally necessary for a current Football League team to either voluntarily drop out or to fail in its bid for re-election. This didn't happen very often: in the 21 seasons from 1958-59 to 1978-79, many teams had applied for membership but only six - Peterborough United (from the Midland League), Oxford United, Cambridge United, Hereford United, Wimbledon (all from the Southern League) and Wigan Athletic (from the Northern Premier League) were elected successfully. An application could, in theory, be made by any non-league team and each year the Football League would have to sift through piles of applications to find those that were viable.

This is why the Alliance Premier League (as it then was) was set up: and once it was operational, the Football League let it be known that it would only consider applications that were submitted by APL member teams. However, these teams did not have to have finished at the top of the APL: but doing so would strengthen their case. The APL also instituted regular promotion and relegation between itself, the Isthmian League, Northern Premier League and the Southern League, and this was the start of the pyramid as we now know it - but there was still no automatic promotion/relegation between the Football League and the APL (this began in 1987), nor between the Isthmian/NPL/Southern on one hand and the various other leagues on the other (this did not begin until the late 1980s/early 1990s). So a team that dropped out of the Southern League would need to apply to some of the smaller leagues like the Athenian League, Hellenic League, Spartan League etc. until one of these accepted the teams's application. There was no hierarchy - you picked a league, applied for membership, then hoped for the best. Teams might even have to spend a season in limbo because none of the leagues would accept them.

Without an established hierarchy, there cannot be any "tiers". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

the football pyramid (tier system) effectively started with the second division in 1892–93 - that's kinda true, but it doesn't mean that all other leagues could immediately be allocated to defined tiers. One of the edits which Joseph made which I have to say I disagreed with was the claim that the Southern League Division Two was "tier 4" when Gillingham won it in 1895. At the time, only one club from the entire southern half of the country played in the Football League, but that doesn't mean that all the rest were in the third tier or below because they weren't as good, it just means that they had not opted to join the FL (which only included clubs from the north and midlands when it was set up, hence why the Southern League was set up as essentially an alternative to it). An argument could be made that at this point in time the Southern League Division One was also "tier 1" for clubs in the south, but stating that as fact would definitely be OR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks, you all helped a lot. However, how come the clubs Seasons articles above, stated that the Southern League/Northern League was tier 5 before 1979? Where would they have got that information from? Joseph1891 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I would guess it's an (incorrect) assumption the editors in question have made, similar to what happened here. Number 5 7 21:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems odd that as many as 6 different clubs’s articles have stated this though, seems a bit unlikely that all 6 made this up? Also, I found this: Southern League history from 1945-1966: https://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/nlmnet/Regs1SthA/SL45.html

“The Southern League operated as a 2-division competition throughout the next few years, with the Premier Division claiming, with some justification, to be the top football section outside the Football League.”

Joseph1891 (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The number of divisions is irrelevant. If there are 6 articles all having the same statement, maybe they were all added by the same person? Also, any league that is geographically restricted cannot make claims like "the top football section outside the Football League" - since they would not have accepted the membership of a team based in Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle, who were they to pretend that they were somehow better than the Central League, Midland League, North-Eastern League, Northern League, or indeed many others? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

1. You say “who were they to pretend?” But the source literally stated that the southern league claimed, with justification, to be the top section outside of the football league. If you want to disprove this citation then perhaps provide contrasting evidence to support your point.
2. Clubs such as Oxford United, Wimbledon, Cheltenham Town, Gillingham, Exeter City, Hereford United, Colchester United and Cambridge United all competed in the Southern league at times during this period (1946-1966) as the source states.
3. There is a vast amount of evidence for the Southern League being the longest running and most established non-League division prior to the formation of the alliance premier league, I can provide more sources if you would like. The northern divisions were always more “messy” as originally, the football league contained the majority of the top Northern clubs, and the southern league, the top southern clubs. The southern league was the only non-league division that ever truly “rivalled” the football league in terms of quality, as was it’s intention when it was formed.
4. Even Number57, the leading editor in this debate stated that leagues that cover a wider geographical region are considered a higher division, and that the southern league was indeed “one of the best leagues outside of the football league” which I also thought would be fairly obvious. The one exception to this, I would say, would be the Lancashire combination, as Lancashire as a county has historically contained the highest volume of big/ high quality clubs in England. The Lancashire Combination and the Midland League were likely the greatest northern non-League divisions prior to the formation (within the non-League system) of the northern league in 1974. Albeit the southern league, (which unlike the northern divisions, hosted clubs from the entirety of southern England) was established in 1894, only 6 years after the formation of the football league. thereby having access to a larger pool of top clubs. For example the “North Eastern League” was of lower quality than the “Northern League”

And the “Wiltshire League” was lower quality than the southern league, as the leagues are physically restricted to a smaller geographical region, excluding the larger teams from other counties/areas.

5. Simply by looking at the level of teams in the southern League compared to that of the “London League” or the “East Anglian aLeague” during this period one can easily see that, in general, the southern League trumped the other southern divisions.
6. Therefore, “ you say “Many others”- if possible, could you please possibly name all the other non-League divisions that supposedly operated at the same level during this period.
7. I Find it slightly odd that I’ve provided multiple sources for my statements, yet no one believing the opposite has of yet? It would be great if you someone could provide any evidence. Rather than just repeatedly stating “the pyramid officially started in 1979, therefore there were surely no tiers” without any real citation/ evidence to back up this claim.
8. After 1952 all league applicants from southern clubs came from The southern league, so I don’t see how any other southern divisions could be on the same level if it’s clubs were not eligible for football league.

Also, I checked and the articles were not all written by the same person. Joseph1891 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This sounds suspiciously like WP:OR to me. Find some sources that state "the southern league WAS the tier below the league". Your opinion on the standard is not relevant, we require reliable sources to back up any claims you make. "Claimed with some justification" is similarly problematic. Spike 'em (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it probably does count as WP:OR as non-League football before 1979 is extremely under-recorded compared to the higher divisions. But then, surely everyone else’s contrasting points to my own in this section must also be: WP:OR as no one has actually provided any evidence stating that the Southern league: “WAS NOT the tier below the football league or the top level of non-League football” Joseph1891 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Joseph1891 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Source: Robinson, Michael, ed. (2017). Non-League Football Tables 1889-2017. Cleethorpes: Soccer Books Ltd. p. 47. ISBN 978-1-86223-354-6. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll spend time looking for more sources, currently I have no access to a computer, so it may a take a bit longer Joseph1891 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

[[18]] states that the Southern and Northern league were professional when the Alliance Premier league was formed. Joseph1891 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have misplaced my "Non-League Football Tables 1889-2017", but I have the 2016 edition to hand (as well as all earlier editions). What is on page 47, and what is it a source for? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Page 47 is the source for the: “National League and English Football history section” List of non-League clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1925–26 another article that supports my point. Joseph1891 (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CIRC: you can't use wikipedia articles as a source for another article. You need to go back to the original sources and find any of those that state what the levels (if any) were. If there is a faulty WP convention then we need to challenge it, not perpetuate it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It wasn’t a source of evidence, I used it merely to illustrate that other editors also share the same view as me. As I said, it will take time, as I currently don’t have access to a computer and I am busy in real life. Joseph1891 (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, to say a league that hosted clubs (from 1946-1966) such as Oxford United, Wimbledon, Cheltenham Town, Gillingham, Exeter City, Hereford United, Colchester United and Cambridge United, during this period, was on par with leagues such as the Wiltshire league that, during the same period, hosted clubs, (with all due respect) such as; Calne and Harries United, Melksham Town, Roundway Hospital, Swindon Victoria, Corsham Town, Warminster Town, Spencer Moulton, Wooten Basset town and Swindon British Railways is ludicrous. If there was “no non-League hierarchy at all” then how come only Southern and a northern League members clubs were eligible for the formation of the alliance premier league. Surely if it were true that no non-League division were superior that clubs from a much wider range of non-League divisions would suggested as founder clubs? [19] Joseph1891 (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No-one is saying the Southern League was on a par with the Wiltshire League. What people are trying to point out to you is that there was no formal pyramid or tiers. This should not a hard concept to understand. Number 5 7 14:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m still waiting for a source for this claim @Number57 Joseph1891 (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

[20] “Before the formation of the Alliance Premier Football League in 1979 the best non-league divisions in England were the Northern Premier League and Southern League.” Joseph1891 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I’ve still provided more sources to back up the claim that the southern league was the best division outside of the football league/ in non-League football before 1979, than you have provided against it. I don’t see a problem with providing a footnote in articles stating something like: “note: the southern league was not officially recognised as tier 5 etc” though it acted as such, being the “strongest league outside of the football league before 1979”: *provide citations.” etc. if you want to disprove the sources I’ve stated above than perhaps provide some of your own. When you repeatedly state: “there were no tiers before 1979” I’m just purely relying on your word. [21] - from

The official Southern League website: “During the 1940s, 50s and 60s especially, it was commonplace to see well-known former stars of top-level football plying their trade in the Southern League. It was the foremost non-League competition and players could often earn more playing part-time than being with League clubs.”
[22]

“The 1969 season saw a hint of change when the formation of the Northern Premier League to equal the status of the long-established Southern League was the first step of many which led to the creation of the non-League `Pyramid'. Joseph1891 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You need third-party sources, not the League itself. Also please sign your posts properly. Giant Snowman 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

[23] “1920, the top division of the Southern League was merged into the Football League to form the Third Division; the following season a further division of teams from a series of northern leagues formed the Third Division North, with the existing league renamed the Third Division South accordingly. From then on, the Southern League's influence was reduced, although it remained the second strongest competition in England.“

@Giant Snowman, if you read above, I can’t as I currently don’t have access to a computer. And where does Wikipedia state that you need third party sources? Then surely all Wikipedia articles that use their official club website for history are not correct? Joseph1891 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:REPUTABLE - "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (my emphasis). Also your method of posting these walls of texts is disruptive. People are not going to engage with you and come around to your arguments unless you stop. Giant Snowman 15:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see how an official website ain’t a reliable source? Then surely any premier league citation on the Premier League article (there are some) should be removed? Okay sorry, I’ll stop posting in that way, I was unaware of this. However it doesn’t mean that the sources themselves should be ignored. Joseph1891 (talk)

Again - please sign properly! I have already explained that sources should be independent and given you the link to read more. Giant Snowman 15:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

But I stated that I cannot currently, I send my apologies, I will go back and sign them properly when I have access to a computer. Sorry but, I’m not sure if you’re actually reading my comments or if you're just focusing on the format. Plus I have provided independent sources, they are not all from the official Southern League website Joseph1891 (talk)

Sign using ~~~~. Giant Snowman 16:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry, thanks for the help. Do you know if there’s anyway I can go back and sign previous replies like this on mobile? Joseph1891 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup statistics

Any ideas why 2022 FIFA World Cup statistics exists? Surely it's a massive deal against WP:NOTSTATS. Most of the article is unsourced, and quite a lot of it isn't even about the 2022 event, but rather how some players have played at multiple world cups, or scored in other events. The man of the match table is particularly egregious, as it isn't something I've seen anywhere else, so we are pretty much making up a ranking table for something that players aren't ranked on. Usually when we have tables, they are based on other reliable sources making the same observations, rather than a WP:SYNTH to show something completely irrelevant. We don't show the total number of man of the match awards someone has won in their career - why do so here?

I recommend merging what little information can be retained from this that isn't WP:OR or already in the main article.

I realise such articles exist for previous events, but I don't see how they meet the arguments above either. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there's nothing there that is sourced and relevant that couldn't be included in the parent article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, ditch it and any other stats articles for previous FIFA World Cups as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have done such an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

1994–95 Mexican Primera División season

I noticed some inconsistencies on the page, one being the name of C.D.S. Tampico Madero being named Gallos Blancos TM at the time. Which way round should it be on the article. I put Tampico Madero in the results table, and the page seems to be running between the two names. The main article is C.D.S. Tampico Madero. Also too note, the name of the team changed halfway through the season which does make the issue even more annoying!

This cite: "Surreal Liga MX: La mudanza a medio torneo del Tampico Madero". elfutbolito.mx (in Spanish). 13 August 2019. Retrieved 22 April 2022. no longer working was about that. So, which way round on the article should it be when you consider the club reverted back to Tampico Madero? Govvy (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

hmm, no one to help on this? Govvy (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Historically accurate names should be used. Giant Snowman 13:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a blogpost that sheds some light on the situation. The original football club from Tampico had dissolved, but Pelaez Pier purchased the Atlético Potosino franchise and moved the team to Tampico (naming the club Tampico Madero - nicknamed Jaibos). After the first round of the 1994–95 season, the Tampico municipality wouldn't let the club play at the city stadium after a dispute over rent, so Pelaez Pier moved the club to Querétaro for the remainder of the season. In connection with the move, he rebranded the club as Gallos Blancos T.M. (or TM) since Querétaro's historical clubs went by the nickname Gallos Blancos. I think we should reflect Gallos Blancos T.M. (or TM) as the club name in the 1994–95 season article since that was the name for all but the first round. Jogurney (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There are still issues to address on this season page, it looks like two different clubs in one table. Then you have an article Gallos Blancos de Hermosillo, which in essence was and is C.D.S. Tampico Madero. (Merge and redirect?) There are inconsistencies all over the place. No prose about the issues in the article. Trying to get it right seems a big problem to me. I am not even sure if GS has looked at the article properly!! Govvy (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a complicated situation. Mileno has an article that explains some of what happened, but I'm not sure how we should handle things. The club that played in the 1994–95 Primera season was formerly Atlético Potosino, but it played in Tampico under the name Tampico Madero. After five matches (the blog I linked above said after one match, but Milenio is a reliable source), the club moved to Querétaro and changed its name to Gallos Blancos TM. After the season, the club moved to Hermosillo and dropped "TM" from its name. At the end of the 1995–96 Primera season, the club dissolved. More recently, other ownership groups started clubs in Tampico or moved them from other towns and re-named them Tampico Madero. Our article about C.D.S. Tampico Madero covers all of these clubs (except Gallos Blancos de Hermosillo). Perhaps it makes more sense to split these clubs into separate articles (along with merging Gallos Blancos de Hermosillo into the article about the continuation of Atlético Potosino that ultimately dissolved after the 1995–96 Primera season? Jogurney (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Elba football team

Would it not be better to add a sports section to Elba and merge the content and redirect there for the moment? Govvy (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. A team that represents one tiny island (not a sovereign state) and has existed for only just over a year would need some hefty source coverage to merit its own article and I cannot see that this exists -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

k, have merged and redirected, cheers. Govvy (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The Square Ball

Is it really notable enough for it's own article?? Govvy (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems to get a bit of coverage, certainly well known locally (they even have their own beer with a big brewery). Giant Snowman 19:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Easily. The article doesn't mention half of the things they do. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup records and statistics#General statistics by tournament and FIFA World Cup#Awards -inconsiscency

Is Golden Ball the same what "Player of the tournament"? Both are FIFA's official awards? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean first table did not include old players like Garrincha etc. Dawid2009 (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The records and statistics page uses this as a source for the early tournaments, which does not strike me as a reliable source. I'd remove them. Spike 'em (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What an absolutely crazy article. Surely this is the definition of WP:NOTSTATS. Everything seems very WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and most in unsourced. Like, why do we need "Host records", or "attendance for decisive match". Who are we to decide what the "Worst overall performance" is by a champion? It also has some "sourced content", which doesn't cover what is actually being cited, such as "Biggest upset in the group stage, per FIFA rankings" cited to a match report that makes no such claim. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to express your opinion at discussion here! 12:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I've taken it to AfD instead. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Harry Kane

Can one of the admins restore the old article? Considering he is joint top scorer now and will most likely surpass Rooney. Govvy (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Some admins are saying you need a consensus WP:AN#List of international goals scored by Harry Kane to recreate something which is pretty straight forward. It saddens me that no one wants to recreate the article. Anyone around who want to add to this... conversation! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane represents the last time the subject was discussed. There is an already existing consensus. Consensus can change, but we do need a new discussion to overturn the currently existing consensus. Please let an admin know if there is a consensus to re-create the article and we'll take care of it once consensus is clear. --Jayron 32 19:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Do such articles like this meet WP:LISTN? Do sources actually talk about the international goals specifically as a group about any player, let alone this one particular player? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, when he scores one more there probably will be such sources, as he'll be England's top scorer in history. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just want to note that the information is already in the Harry Kane article. It has not been removed from Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 19:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: You're still completely disregarding WP:PAGESIZE, when an article is considered too big it is suggested to split the list out per WP:SPLITLIST, none of the delete voters consider this in the past AfD, which is still a floored AfD, regardless of what you call consensus. Being an admin you should be more aware of article structures, article size and what the options are to deal with dealing with this. And yet, you've completely disregarded the primary aspect of what constitutes one of these lists. Is that player a top scorer is the primary focus, Harry Kane has reached that benchmark. So regardless of what ever the previous consensus was, that is effectively null and void. Govvy (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect, Harry Kane is 44 kB (7907 words) in size, which doesn't necessarily require a split per WP:PAGESIZE. That does suggest over 50 kB to be a more close length to think about splitting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Now I am confused, Are you sure you got that right? Because I see the page information as 173KB in data length. Govvy (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, PAGESIZE refers to readable prose length, not data length, which is 44 Kb. I'm not saying you can't split out at that length, but it's hardly Manditory. I generally think it's worth doing once it's around the 60 Kb level. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

All of this is a fun conversation to have, but it matters not. What we need is a clear positive consensus from the community to overturn the existing consensus, which is linked above. Trying to play the "We don't need to have a discussion because <here's some rule I made up that means I get to make all of the decisions and ignore everyone else>" is not how Wikipedia works. Have a discussion, see where the consensus lies. --Jayron 32 11:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL table

A user keeps removing Ecuador having -3 points even though the Court of Arbitration of Sport confirmed they would have a deduction of 3 points for the 2026 qualification. ([24]]) I do not want to keep reverting him because I do not want to edit war. Mwiqdoh (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: The user is on a short block Eagleash (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity,

Why has it been always league only in infobox? When did that come about?? Govvy (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the main driver is that it's comparatively easy to find league stats for players from the pre-internet era (e.g. from this this book) but the same sources do not contain stats for other competitions, so they are far harder to source. As having "league only" stats for players before a certain date but "all comps" thereafter would just lead to utter chaos, the best solution is to have league only for everyone (and full stats, if available, can be in a more detailed table further down....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

And also for many non-European countries, there still isn't good sourcing for cup matches i.e. there sources will only include league appearances. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you want to find all the line ups of the group stage (Late 1990's) of the Dutch Cup, you will need a lot of help from the Dutch FA, because the reports in the newspapers and magazines are often not sufficient. Before 1971 the Dutch FA can't help, a lot of information was destroyed many years ago. Unfortunately, the Dutch Cup wasn't as popular as the FA Cup in England. In the 1950's a lot of top level clubs couldn't even be bothered to enter the Cup and in some seasons there was no cup at all! Cattivi (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal needs input

Formal request has been received to merge: Liga Femenina (Peru) into Peruvian Primera División Femenina; Proposer's Rationale: The Premier division of women's football in Peru is only one. Over time the tournaments have changed their format and name, but they are still the official women's football tournament. See the Copa Perú Femenino article also. Your input is requested >>>Here<<<. Thank you, GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps

Hello! What do other football editors think about this issue? Please participate. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult, because that topic doesn't actually explain what the issue is. I'm assuming it's an issue with some differences between FIFA and other sources? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume so. I'd say just go with the official FIFA caps and drop Soh Chin Ann to third.--Echetus Xe 11:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The "issue" was that RFFFS say one figure, and all the reliable sources use the FIFA figure. To summarise this non-issue, according to Lorry we should not only go with the former, despite it being in violation of WP:FRINGE, we should completely disregard the latter. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I never said that, please read again my input in the talk page of the article. It's in simple English. Anyway, the ISSUE is that you consider the FIFA figure reliable and back it up by the idiotic reason it has been copied by a dozen of media outlets (newspapers), which is idiotic from a scientific/statistics point of view, and consider RSSSF unreliable, a source which not only has been deemed as reliable in WP and has been used vastly so for football articles references, but it is also the document FIFA uses to compose their FIFA Century Club (as you can see at the bottom of the FIFA Century Club list), apart from the fact of additionally having more details (details per matches and not only just the totals). Furthermore, as we are talking about an encyclopaedia, i.e. for all the knowledge surrounding a fact, an entity or an event, et c., makes more sense like it was before with both FIFA and RSSSF rankings, i.e. let the reader decide which one to believe and/or give more importance/credibility; besides, it had been like forever with the layout it had, i.e. why change something that no-one had any problem with in the first place? I suggest taking a look at the German counterpart (direct link here), where you can see more information and both RSSSF statistics rankings and FIFA Century Club rankings, a good example that there is the information and people can decide by themselves to which one to give more credence to; besides, if you only wish to have a FIFA Century Club, there is no point in having the article at all, they can simply check that list in FIFA or find the most capped ones according to FIFA in media outlets, which media outlets don't know better and of course they will copy FIFA's list since having Cristiano Ronaldo on top sells more. P.S. Bottom line, how come RSSSF is not reliable and FIFA which uses RSSSF is? This is absurd: ether both are reliable or both are unreliable. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Point proven. Thanks Lorry. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

We should go with what third parties state, which sounds like they treat FIFAs amounts as gospel, so we should too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to call RSSSF a fringe theory, especially as FIFA themselves recognise RSSSF as a reliable statistical organisation (see the footnote of FIFA Century Club) however as the overwhelming majority of news outlets rely on FIFA's definition of international caps, the additional Olympic matches and those that were discounted by FIFA should just be noted rather than a sortable column (as the page looked like a mess previously). Felixsv7 (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not disingenuous if they are the one saying X player has Y caps, and all the other sources say X player has Z caps. That's the very definition of a fringe theory. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

1986 in Swedish football

Can someone from here fix the football box templates in the National team results section of 1986 in Swedish football? I tried removing the spurious }}, but that was not sufficient for a complete fix. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This was fixed shortly after this post by HawkAussie. Looks like there were too many }}s. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Galatasaray season articles

Hi all - every single season that has a wikipedia article has recently been moved by a user without any explanation as far as I can see. For instance when it had previously been 2002–03 Galatasary S.K. season, it is now 2002–03 Galatasary S.K. (men's football) season. I appreciate that there is now a women's section to the club with pages starting with the 2021–22 season but should every historical page for the men's team, dating back to 1904–05 be moved because of this? Thanks. Rupert1904 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

In a word: no.--Echetus Xe 15:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No the moves should be reverted. Ortizesp (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Pinging @Ozanozan:. Kante4 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've moved them all back. I've left Ozanozan a message, however they have been editing for well over ten years and have never used a talk or usertalk page (apart from to blank their own usertalk), so I doubt if we'll get a response. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Black Kite: and everyone else! Rupert1904 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ya'll need to double-check that nothing got inappropriately flagged for CSD. I spotted that 1994–95 Galatasaray S.K. season got deleted while having the actual article history in it. Might be a few others that got lost in the shuffle. @Black Kite Cyrius|✎ 22:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

ENGVAR at 2026 FIFA World Cup

Simply put, the 2026 FIFA World Cup article currently fiercely enforces the use of United States English based entirely on the United States being one of three host nations.

WP:ENGVAR dictates that status quo be kept (which I don't think is met here due to the low number of editors, but I also think this does not really matter due to the next part) unless there are significant cultural ties to a particular variety of English. The subject here is not "soccer in the United States", it is not even "football in North America", it is "top level international men's world football".

I therefore think there are sufficient cultural ties to Commonwealth English, the global variety, for a discussion about changing the ENGVAR to take place.

I come here after a very unsatisfactory discussion at the article talkpage, where you can see I also noted that other men's World Cup articles use Commonwealth English (including 2010, notably not using South African English despite being located there). And, a large concern, that the people most likely to engage with a FIFA World Cup article will not be users of American English and chances are they will edit to "correct" gerunds, -ize, and vocabulary — prominently "soccer" to "football". That can be prevented by using the English most typical of the subject matter from the start.

I don't know whether to make a formal RfC, but just asking for views seems a good place to start.

P.S. This isn't me having an issue with the word "soccer", though that is a perpetual issue among football fans. It is that the connection between the US and men's international football is small, and simply being host does not change the culture of the football. Even the SheBelieves Cup article, about a women's international football tournament created by and hosted in the United States, seems to use Commonwealth English (certainly, it uses "football"), and the US is far more important in women's football than in men's. Kingsif (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should probably be football rather than soccer as FIFA World Cup is written that way. You will probably need to RfC it though as 1994 FIFA World Cup and 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup are also written in the local English variants. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, probably. As said, women's football has a very different relationship with the US and should be a different discussion. I also find that the 1994 article has been through different ENGVARs, again with discussion on the talk page turned down (not that there is much to go off current guidelines, looking at the history); the fact that no British team participated that year seems to be one of the reasons leaned on there. Kingsif (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think every World Cup article should have a standardised introduction applied to all the tournament articles. Without checking them all, most have similar wording as The 1938 FIFA World Cup was the third edition of the World Cup, the quadrennial international football championship for senior men's national teams and was held in France from 4 June until 19 June 1938. That seems fine to me. You don't just change it depending on what country it was on. Also, the name CONCACAF, of which USA are in, is Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football. Do they change the name of the confederation to CONCACAS if an event is in USA? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The article should be in US English since the greatest part of the matches will be in the US. The articles talking on groups taking place in Canada should use CA English. Dr Salvus 16:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Just jumping in to say that even if we don't achieve consistency across all World Cup articles, I think there should be consistency between articles on the same World Cup, unless a need for change becomes apparent. Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We should be using the least confusing term where possible; as a large number of American readers are likely to be reading this article over the next few years, it would be most helpful to not let them be confused by the use of "football", which refers to several sports that diverged 150ish years ago. Sticking to American English would be more consistent with MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN than trying to force British English onto an article that has nothing to do with Britain. Sounder Bruce 20:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Completely separate to our previous discussion, Bruce, I am planning (and already was) to put "please don't make this UK vs USA" in the header for the RfC. So, if (when) you !vote there, I would encourage you to use a different phrasing. (I mean, I would anyway because it's a bit combative, but you're not the only one there.) Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As an American "soccer" fan, I think this article should be consistent with other similar articles about tournaments and use the term football. Agree that the fact it is taking place partly in America does not mean that it should suddenly be called soccer throughout the article for all global English speakers. Maybe in the lead section there can be a use or two of soccer. Just my two cents. Rupert1904 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be written in British or American English as neither is really appropriate. I feel there should be a sort of international English for international things like this where you can't really say which variant of English an article should be written in. At the very least, it would refer to this sport as association football as it's international and people in Australia, USA, Canada etc all expect different things from the word football on its own. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC below — following the advice at the RfC page, it made it more general. Take that as you will. Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

monstrually long names of titles and subtitles in biographies' of more popular footballers

Recently I correted long title in article about Ronaldinho. I waws wondering i it is worthible to add extremally long titles in articles about biograhpies, for example:

Gianluigi Buffon:

2.2.82017–2018: Final season of first spell with Juventus and seventh consecutive Scudetto

Thierry Henry:

2.11992–1999: Beginnings at Monaco and transfer to Juventus

Robert Lewandowski

1.4.32017–2019: Consecutive Golden Boots and all-time foreign Bundesliga goalscorer

Lionel Messi

2.1.72013–2014: Messidependencia

2.2.12021–22: Seventh Ballon d'Or and first season adjustments (even though Messi received Ballon d Or ot for not only PSG performance and 7-th Ballon d Or is not in PSG museum) - user randomly choosen various titles for won interpretation. Why we talk aboiut Ballon d Ors in the title but not about other Messi's reord, for eample reaching most caps for national team in international sections or about record of most man of the match awards in history? All that is subjective IMO nd the only solution is make titles shorters to reader could interpretate section.

Very weird (so annonying to read) title ection at Carli Lloyd

3.2.3Injury recovery, 100th cap and World Cup qualifying, 2009–2010

Paolo Maldini, new title (IMHO, own interpretation, not sourced it is called by someone new era):

1.52001–2007: New era of success - so where is the source?

Cristiano Ronaldo:

2.4.22020–2021: 100 Juve goals, Capocannoniere, and departure - again some bit werird subjetive title of section (ehh, why not most goals in history of Juventus for eample? but the shortest titile would be OK and normal without own expressions)

Neymar

2.3.62021–22: 400th career goal and collective disappointment - 400th goal? llo what is it? Why not about every 100-th goal for every player to wea add?

Luka Modrić:

2.4.62021–22: 10th season with Real Madrid, third Spanish and fifth Champions League title - again hy we can not give title that normally but so long?

I have chosed just some examples, but in fact I would remove evefry single word after title of "name season (2018-2019 season and such). IMHO every single article should generally look like article about Kevin De Bruyne or Eric Cantona. It is not necessary to add so long titles when thr is not very strong reason for that. What do you think? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If there will be no oposition for next next TWO WEEKS, I will remove boldly all "long titiles" with keeping only short names (a ka 2009/2010 season etc.). Regardless or edit wars or not I will say that I have been waiting here for consensus in terms of consiscency how title should look. Regards. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

For consensus to be made, you may want to ping editors who are adding that what you want to remove and invite them to this discussion. Kante4 (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Such 'titles' for sections should not be used - they smack of OR/POV. Keep it to the facts - club and seasons as appropriate. Giant Snowman 20:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's not OR/POV to say Messi won the Ballon Dor in X year or Giggs won the Treble in 1999, and so on. As long the section title isn't excessively long or against WP:UNDUE, I don't see the issue with having a descriptive section title. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, i don't see anything wrong either with including something like key facs in a carrier. -Koppapa (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Per ItsKesha. In larger articles, a section heading with a brief, pertinent, neutral reference to its content can be helpful to the browsing reader. Something the size of Lionel Messi – 118kB prose size – would be pretty off-putting without some sort of descriptive section headings. Where there's nothing particular in a section worth highlighting, just use the club, or season, or "Later career" or whatever. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Is not it enough if we include trivia not important stat (for example 400-th Neymar goal) in the section instead harder? Do you rfealise that subjectively choosing say FRance Football individual award ovr say FIFA player of the year is OR/POV as User:GiantSnowman said? The same would go opposite way: choosing into title/subtitle FIFA playr of the year instead Ballon d Or and such. Adding to the title/subtitle winning major trophy (Champions League, World Cup, even MVP of the tournament) is 100% ok but individual awards and trivia milestone goals should not be included. Why you do not add to Diego Maradona South American Footballer of the Year award? What is difference beetwen "Ballon d Or before 1995" and South American player of the year? (rethorial question), answer: nothing both awards are for being best on the continent. Dawid2009 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

those modric ones are ridic lmao.Muur (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Michalis Karvouniaris

Hi folks. Michalis Karvouniaris, likely created by the article subject in 2016, is a mess. Maybe someone feels like performing some cleanup? :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

How about Régine Mismacq?

Does anyone think Régine Mismacq should have an article? Mismacq did win Division 1 Féminine 5 times according to Le Parisien, "As a kid, I didn't understand why I couldn't play football" - Le Parisien Dwanyewest (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus on Phrasing of national team names

Has there been established a consensus on the Phrasing of national team names because a variety in all sports articles has been in use and when one attempts to standardise it there seems to be those that believe a certain style should be used because it is perceived to be grammatically correct instead of following the purpose of the name(s) based on the language of the originating organisation that establishes it as a title, not a form of writing that changes to fit the grammar of the English language. My contention is that the name comes from some type of legally established action from the country of origin whether that be incorporation papers or legislative actions. That, especially for piped or truncated links, if the country of origin established the name of their national team, as an example France, tthen the use of France should be used throughout specially to avoid confusion by those that may change France to French. Their originating title is "France" not "française" = french. In some countries you do not even need to be a citizen or resident of the nation to be included in a national team. Some originating titles do say *ian but many do not. Is it possible to get a consensus on the phrasing of national team names based on the originating language established by the original nation? Some have brought up that we do not say American Navy but United States Navy. We do not even say United Statesian Navy. There may be those that say that with the number of variants it is just best to leave it be. That just makes it a free for all that will only lead to confusion. The singular reason for bringing this up is that despite all the discussion in the project there seem to be those that believe there is no consensus thus any use of wording that is not to their perception grammatically correct without guidance from WP is just reason enough to revert changes leading to a consistency besides confusion. Wy should there be a difference between "France national football team|France" and "France national football team|French national team" ? You do not just go about changing titles of organisations merely to "fit" English grammar.2603:8000:D300:D0F:A4A9:1E1:30A5:4340 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please slow down. At my Talk page, responding to your inquiry, I informed you that using "France" is the current consensus here and I gave you an older discussion from this venue where @Number 57: explains why it is correct. Your message above is long (beware of Wikipedia:Wall of text) but does not engage with the arguments made by Number 57. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

CrazyFootballFan

Please can people keen an eye on CrazyFootballFan (talk · contribs) - eager editor making a bunch of poor edits, including removing sources, removing positions, changing piping, and general other MOS violations. Their current obsession is Sam Hutchinson, including adding copyvio images. Giant Snowman 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

-I just rewrote a paragraph on that page adding detail and this GiantSnowman guy reverted it. I removed a position he no longer plays in. I have improved and added to sentences and this guy keeps reverting it. Regards - CrazyFootballFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyFootballFan (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this edit is not necessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Then feel free to revert it, as he has added it again. Giant Snowman 21:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

GS, I think when engaging with new users making mistakes, in most cases it's more constructive to explain the mistakes they're making on their Talk page instead of placing templated warnings. Templated warnings can come across as hostile and threatening and oftentimes don't help with understanding the problems with their edits. In my experience, this can lead to aggressive reactions as we can observe here and on CrazyFootballFan's Talk page, or discourage editors to the point that they stop editing altogether. Both results are obviously not desirable.

While a warning saying "unsourced" at least informs users that they need to supply a citation, a warning saying "not constructive" doesn't say why. I see you gave explanations after your third warning but I'd wager we wouldn't be here if you had explained in the first instance. With larger edits like the one you linked above there's a lot to explain, I know, but I think that's the way.

Even worse, a third-level warning will label an editor's changes as "vandalism" which is an unfair thing to do to an inexperienced editor editing in good faith and will only serve to invite a more confrontational attitude. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I have explained on their talk page without using a templated message. They ignored me and carried on. Giant Snowman 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

They also responded with this infantile edit. Giant Snowman 21:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

CrazyFootballFan, whilst I believe you should have maybe gotten a slightly more in depth rationale as to why your edits weren't suitable, when told they aren't, you have continued to readd them. The above edit on GiantSnowman's userpage is incredibly striking, and I would suggest not doing anything similar in future. I'd also suggest not blindly readding text in future when reverted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

He was completely reverting every edit I made, labelling it as "vandalism". I rewrote a whole paragraph improving it and adding more detail just for him to label it "vandalism" and completely revert it. I think reverting this was unfair as I did use some of my own time writing that just to be constantly bullied by this admin reverting everything I did. I dont think he even read the paragraph and just reverted it. I shouldnt have edited his page but he was pissing me off so I retaliated. This guy ignored my point about the paragraph and kept telling me "oh yeah vandalism", "not constructive".

Reverting my work every time I make a change is not constructive seeing as I'm trying to make a page better CrazyFootballFan (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also notice how after I make changes he reverts them to "last good version". How is that meant to make me feel? This is implying that my edits are rubbish even though all I'm trying to do is help imporve the article.

Link to highlight: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Hutchinson&action=history#:~:text=Disambiguation%20links%20added-,curprev,Tag%3A%20Undo,-curprev CrazyFootballFan (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't "retaliate", it's incredibly frowned upon, and you won't get a second warning about editing other people's userpages. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that CFF responded to an NPA warning for the edit to GianSnowman's user page linked above with a further personal attack, I've blocked them for 31 hours. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have explained on their talk page without using a templated message. GS, did you miss this sentence in my post: "I see you gave explanations after your third warning"? That statement does not seem accurate as the diff shows those explanations came with a third-level warning alleging vandalism. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Argentina–Netherlands football rivalry

I am not sure I see this as a rivalry, the whole article just feels WP:ROUTINE coverage. Is it really needed? This also feels a little WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I always thought this was a pretty well-known rivalry, stemming mostly from their clashes in the 70s. Seems like plenty of coverage around anyway that specifically reference a rivalry, [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Kosack (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's enough significant coverage of this rivalry to substantiate the article. – Pee Jay 17:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)