Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 106

Archive 100

←

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

→

Archive 110

NF-Board

I would like to get some views of Wiki users on the N.F.-Board. The organisation is defunct by now, but of course there is a value of keeping the article for historical reasons. However, there was some discussion over the last days about the "Members" section in particular. I proposed to only keep members of which we have any proof of existence. Would you give your view on the NF-Board talk page? NikauTokelau (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Any associations you can prove to have been members should be listed, in my opinion, along with their years of membership in parentheses. For example, Greenland (2006-2013). Obviously most of those nations will have an end date of 2013 since that's when the organisation was dissolved, but it makes sense to at least say when they joined. – PeeJay 19:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point, User:PeeJay2K3. I did a lot of research today and did a detailed proposal on the talk page of the N.F.-Board page now. Feedback would be lovely!NikauTokelau (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

"Capped"

The page on Andrew Ker says "He was capped for Scotland in 1988", and I assume that the same term appears in many other articles on players of this sport. (See what I did there? :-) ) The sentence was totally obscure to me.

With regard to the sport and its jargon, I'm just an ignorant American, as are a great many other readers of Wikipedia. I found Cap (sport) and linked the word in Andrew Ker to it. Would it make sense to do so generally in football articles, presumably by bot? If so, the same could be proposed for its use in cricket, Rugby Union, and Rugby League as well.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: I am not sure if it would absolutely necessary to link every player in every sport who has been capped. It could run into thousands of articles. Term is widely used in English speaking sports world outside of North America. Djln Djln (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sabbatino claims that the football team template states that only ground should be listed in the infobox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sabbatino Multiple entries for "Per Template:Infobox football club – this field is for stadium/ground and not its location". The template does not state that it may not contain the location. There was a discussion at the template where three editors said it made sense and we attempted to determine the best way forward, but we did not move forward. Would anyone like to revert the other edits or assist to move the template forward? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does: ground — The name of the club's home ground (use stadium to label as stadium for American clubs). I don't see any mention about location. And the fact that discussion at the template's talk page has been dead for almost a year means people don't really care with your proposal. You just use personal preference for the MLS clubs to list the location, which is not how a Wikipedia page should be handled. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not Walter's personal preference. The location should really be listed. Number 57 08:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's his personal preference. Location is irrelevant. Otherwise, there would be a parameter for that. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How is the location of the stadium irrelevant? Sometimes the location isn't immediately obvious by the name of the club, so it makes sense to be explicit about the fact that Chelsea actually play in Fulham, for example. – PeeJay 09:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Location is always given in the first sentence of team's article. Read my previous post above – if the location was needed then there would be a parameter for that in the infobox. Go to template's talk page and discuss there, because I'm tired that some people only woke up after almost a year. It's also funny that you bring up Chelsea F.C., because it used to be like this until 2011 when after some back-and-forth it was completely removed and location was instead added in the opening sentence of the article. Of course about a year after that someone decided to re-add it it without giving any reason for such action. It was again removed in 2015 and that user gave the same reason as me – Per template. There were no objections since then. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There's never been a need for a location parameter because we've always used the ground parameter for ground + location. See here from 2004. Number 57 10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it it not really needed. Location is mentioned in the lead. Kante4 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear - it is neither required (so we needn't rush off adding it and screaming at others), nor is it frowned upon (so we shouldn't do the same to those that include it), to include the location. If articles differ then that is (on the whole) largely irrelevant and a matter of taste. The location of the stadium does no harm, and so long as it is factually accurate then I see no issue in it being included if an editor adds it. The summary information of the infobox is often duplicated within the article wholesale - this is not a reason to say that it should not be included (but it is an argument to say that the information is not doing any harm). In the case of MLS squads and other sports, we should also be aware of the difference between where a team plays, where it is based, and where the stadium is as there can be significant differences. Koncorde (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to defeat the purpose of an infobox to force the reader into the article, or to click through a link, to locate a snippet of basic information that can be, and routinely has been, included in that infobox. Leaving off the stadium location is incomplete at best and when omitted is easily ambiguous or confusing. "Tiger Stadium", for example, is not useful; and as noted above, many teams play their games in a place different than the city for which they're named. I am not sure location should be mandatory in each and every case, but I think that methodically removing it from places where it is already is disruptive. JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There are instances where the ground is in a city different from where team is located. The team's location is not a parameter in the infobox.

Agree with Koncorde. It's neither required nor prohibited.

I have updated the docs in the infobox.

"The location of the ground may be included. Follow WP:OVERLINK guidelines to avoid linking common locations or nations."

I could add that it is not required and should not be listed without a ground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Changes to template documentation without reaching a consensus have been reverted. Stop being so desperate and stop trying to win the argument. Reach a consensus first. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

A three to one score in a match would be a consensus that a team has won. A three to one result on the talk page is the same. The wording is tentative, but I will allow another editor to revert you as I am at 3RR now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Learn to count. There's no 3–1. It's 3–2. But that's not the point, because there's no consensus. Until there's a consensus, I will keep going at what the template suggests. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. At the template it's 3:1. Consensus is not a vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I restored the location information at FC Schalke 04 because the location of the playing field is not obvious from the stadium name, its inclusion is not prohibited, and the information has been in the info box for a couple of years at least. I left FC Augsburg alone for now because, arguably at least, adding "Augsburg" to Augsburg Arena there doesn't add much. JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As JohnInDC says, this seems a case of using common sense as opposed to having a strict rule for all cases. The example brought emphasises it perfectly. --SuperJew (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit overkill to include the stadium/ground's location in infobox. SLBedit (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Overkill is having the street name, country and postcode. Having the city is a fairly basic necessity I'd have thought, especially given that many clubs aren't named after their hometow or play in a different one. Number 57 22:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Team have to play outside their base city such as Sassuolo, i think removal the actual address (the city and town) of the stadium was overkill. Matthew_hk tc 05:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

• In my opinion only the stadium should be listed in infobox, especially if it has it's own article which would then tell readers were stadium is. The exception would be if the stadium did not have it's own article. DjlnDjln (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The parameter should have both stadium name and town/city. GiantSnowman 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the Latin Cup be listed as an honour?

User:Karim3adel seem to think the Latin Cup is an offically recognized tournament by UEFA and FIFA because in an old article at uefa.com it is described as "a forerunner to the European Cup", and in another old article at fifa.com it is listed among Benfica's honours. I've already reworked his original edits to something like this, so as to remove any implication that those descriptions were any kind of official recognition.

However, he also added the Latin Cup in the honours section of each winner's article (Barça, Benfica, Milan, Reims, Real). I was about to revert them all, since I assumed we only listed UEFA- (or equivalent) and FIFA-sanctioned tournaments as international honours, but then I noticed that on Barça's page the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is listed as well. So now I'm not sure anymore and thought I would ask you guys for advice. Luxic (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with including it, particularly since the competition predates the formation of UEFA. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

We should be careful in saying things about the relative recognition of trophies as if that has any actual implication. FIFA and UEFA were not always the masters of football, or owners of competitions and their hierarchies, and in the same way may not forever be the owner of all competitions (the creation of breakaway federations has been common, particularly for the big teams looking to create a super euro-league). Federations change, competitions come and go, and historic competitions in particular often had no association with the european and world federation. On a more local level, actual national football federations are often spin-offs of more local regional competitions, which can mean that entire League Championships have their precursor in more regional City or State championships. Again, we don't need the current Federation to officially recognise the historic achievements for them to still be honours (nor should the absence of recognition be included in an article as some kind of challenge to their legitimacy).

The absence of recognition by UEFA and FIFA is irrelevant and we really shouldn't be adding any value judgement to them, or creating an "officially recognized" definition that isn't explicitly stated in a source. People falsely make the assumption that FIFA.com and UEFA.com contain exhaustive lists of competitions, but they are routinely incomplete and inaccurate or subject to their own bias. An obvious example, for instance, is the 1972 European Super Cup which is 'unofficial' because UEFA refused to sanction it, not because it didn't happen, wasn't considered the Super Cup, or wasn't between the respective cup winners, and didn't meet all other competitive criteria. Its 'unofficial' status is based upon the sources and actual context, not upon its absence from a list on FIFA.com or UEFA.com. Koncorde (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

UEFA rules European football since 1955 and in its official document called "Vision Europe" regards itself as the only one governing body that provides official information about international football held in Europe. So, in this case, the UEFA point of view is relevant. FIFA is another case: until the 2000 FIFA Club World Championship it was not related to clubs (for maked these type of competitions there are the confederations) as claimed in the UEFA document for the 50 years of the European Champions' Clubs Cup. Its website just provides information to fans for historic purpose in pages about clubs' history, but FIFA has not legal power for decide if any continental competition is official or not (any confederation is the only one can to decide this).--181.66.84.243 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

UEFA's opinion on the 1938 Cup of Bulgaria, or the Latin Cup, or the Home Championship is irrelevant as to whether it is an honour (which is the point of this discussion). UEFA does not need to recognise such competitions as they are national association title (or joint federation titles). So, yes, "it regards itself" as the arbiter in such matters, but it is not the sole source of defining 'honours' - particularly if they pre-date UEFA, or where organised outside of its current stance of being the sole arbiter of European Club football. Its current stance is only ever as good as its current membership, and there have been several threats to UEFA over the years, with clubs threatening to break from National Associations (as the Premier League effectively did) to organise their own profit making enterprises. Koncorde (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Latin Cup and Inter City Fairs Cup are perfectly legitimate trophies to include in honours list. Otherwise Wiki is in danger of becoming recent-ist. They were major trophies in their time. Totally irrelevant whether recognised by UEFA or not. Both competition notable enough to have own articles, so why exclude them from honours list. Djln Djln (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Barry Hugman's Footballers

FYI I've created {{Hugman}} to make it easier to add this useful source to articles. GiantSnowman 14:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Footballers in Brazil by club

For some reason Category:Footballers in Brazil by club is sub-categorised by state - every other country is, from my experience, not. This makes it extremely hard to see if an existing category exists, to prevent creating a duplication. What are thoughts on this? GiantSnowman 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems fairly pointless categorisation to me – I don't see why states are of any importance here. Agreed it would be better to have all the club visible in one category. Number 57 10:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 21:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tony Pulis' managerial stats

This BBC article has been used as a source to redo Pulis' managerial stats. It differs from his Soccerbase profile in that it gives him three more games in charge of Bournemouth, two more in charge of Gillingham, but one less in charge of Plymouth. I could probably work out the Gillingham discrepancy by comparing Soccerbase's season-by-season stats with one or more of my books (I'm going to hazard a guess that Soccerbase are missing two games in what's now the EFL Trophy), but does anyone have any idea how we could nail down the discrepancy in his Bournemouth stats and the even more bizarre discrepancy in his Plymouth stats? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The English National Football Archive concurs with the BBC article. Here is his Plymouth record:

Games managed for Plymouth Argyle
24 Sep A Southampton D 0-0 Championship

27 Sep A Sheffield Utd L 0-2 Championship

01 Oct H Stoke City W 2-1 Championship

15 Oct H Sheffield Wednesday D 1-1 Championship

18 Oct A Queen`s Park Rangers D 1-1 Championship

22 Oct A Luton Town D 1-1 Championship

30 Oct H Millwall D 0-0 Championship

05 Nov A Ipswich Town L 1-3 Championship

19 Nov H Queen`s Park Rangers W 3-1 Championship

22 Nov A Sheffield Wednesday D 0-0 Championship

26 Nov H Reading L 0-2 Championship

03 Dec A Coventry City L 1-3 Championship

10 Dec A Watford D 1-1 Championship

17 Dec H Crystal Palace W 2-0 Championship

26 Dec A Cardiff City W 2-0 Championship

31 Dec A Wolverhampton Wanderers D 1-1 Championship

02 Jan H Leeds Utd L 0-3 Championship

07 Jan A Wolverhampton Wanderers L 0-1 FA Cup

14 Jan H Norwich City D 1-1 Championship

21 Jan A Crewe Alexandra W 2-1 Championship

24 Jan H Leicester City W 1-0 Championship

31 Jan H Southampton W 2-1 Championship

04 Feb A Burnley L 0-1 Championship

11 Feb H Sheffield Utd D 0-0 Championship

14 Feb A Stoke City D 0-0 Championship

18 Feb H Coventry City W 3-1 Championship

25 Feb A Derby County L 0-1 Championship

04 Mar H Brighton & Hove Albion W 1-0 Championship

07 Mar H Preston North End D 0-0 Championship

11 Mar A Hull City L 0-1 Championship

18 Mar H Cardiff City L 0-1 Championship

25 Mar A Preston North End D 0-0 Championship

01 Apr H Wolverhampton Wanderers W 2-0 Championship

08 Apr A Leeds Utd D 0-0 Championship

15 Apr A Millwall D 1-1 Championship

17 Apr H Luton Town L 1-2 Championship

22 Apr A Leicester City L 0-1 Championship

30 Apr H Ipswich Town W 2-1 Championship

Even the limited 2005–06 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season article shows 38 games from 24 September until the end of the season. I don't know where Soccerbase have got an extra game from. I don't think there is a way of seeing where they made the error. Soccerbase's Tony Pulis record is just wrong and seen as they don't review mistakes or read e-mails it always will be wrong. Need to be careful with Soccerbase, 99% accurate is probably enough to be considered reliable but it isn't 100%. I started deleting external links sections that just have a soccerbase link when the article already has a referenced statistics table, it is almost like a default for a Wikipedia article to have Soccerbase in the external links and I just don't think it deserves to be there. Yes, when there is no stats table / references then it is good to have it there as a handy link for a quick check on the latest stats but, as I say, seems to be a bit overkill to have it on every article.--EchetusXe 19:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Whichever extra game Soccerbase have added in, they think Plymouth won it, that's as much as I can work out...... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hugo Lloris

I've updated his stats table but I am not sure what I did wrong for the alignment of the sub total row. Can someone fix that for me thanks. Govvy (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. When you add a new season to the stats table, you need to increase the club's rowspan by 1. --SuperJew (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, didn't realise that, thanks for the fix. Govvy (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin help with botched move needed

Could one of our admins please move 2016- 17 TT Pro League back to 2016–17 TT Pro League as the user executing the back-and-forth move unfortunately botched it? Thanks in advance! – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Soccer-holic: Done. Number 57 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Omvrasan

Hello to you all. Can anyone here take a look at this user edits and see if they can reach to him? He's been making a lot of edits in African national teams squads articles, adding a bunch of unreferenced stuff or erasing referenced infos, and won't answer on his talk page. Can an admin do something about this (or tell me to chill out because I'm overreacting from an neutral point of view, maybe)? Thanks. Tuttiseme (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jonas Faccio

This user has just been through a fair chunk of English teams' articles and changed the kits to include various logos (usually just the manufacturer's logo, not the main sponsor). If anyone spots one, would they mind reverting to the logoless versions? – PeeJay 17:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree not to have sponsors but what's wrong with the manufacturer's logo if it's accurate? GiantSnowman 07:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

So one logo is okay but not another? I don't understand that. – PeeJay 11:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright or trademark issue maybe? douts (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Stadium infoboxes

I just added an image I took to White Hart Lane and noticed one thing I didn't like with the infobox, is the fact that it says Tottenham are Tenants in their own ground. This doesn't make sense since Tottenham Football club actually own the ground, you are not Tenants if you own your own property Tenants are for when you're renting a property. I didn't realise this field was there, this field should only be used if a club is in say, administration and the club land is owned by a holding company or by Government. I see the same problem is on Manchester Utd. So I propose that for all clubs which own their stadia this should be removed as a field. Govvy (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with this. In terms of semantics, I guess you're right, but the point of that field is to signify which teams have played at that stadium throughout its history. The term "tenant" may be inaccurate for teams that own their own stadium, but I think you're just being picky. – PeeJay 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I work in the real-estate / property sector , that's probably why I find that more annoying! As for which teams have played at what stadium well there is usually more than enough information around the article to show that. I am inclined to remove this field as the information is technically incorrect if your the owner. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not replace the word "tenant" with "occupier"? Sussexpeople (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "occupant" would be a better choice of word. Sussexpeople (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd imagine some wag would add Israel to Faisal Al-Husseini International Stadium if that were the case... But I agree a change may be a good idea. Perhaps something like "Home ground of" or "Used by". Number 57 11:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Replace tenants, definitely misleading. "Used by" is too broad - Carrow Road has been used by England U-21 and Elton John, but it has never been 'their' ground and it'd be UNDUE to list them. I'd go with "Home ground of". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

We had the article for the man with the most important job in football up to GA standard

I knew it couldn't last...--EchetusXe 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Who gets the clean sheet?

I don't know if this has been asked before, but, do both goalkeepers, or just the keeper who appeared last get the clean sheet in the event of a goalkeeper substitution during a match with no goals scored on either keeper? Italia2006 and I found forums [1] [2] indicating that both keepers would get the clean sheet, however, we know those aren't reliable. So does anyone have any insight on this or reliable sources pointing to which (or if both) keepers get a clean sheet so we can update the clean sheet tables in club season articles accordingly? Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My instinct would say both, unless one played significantly more of the match than the other, but like Reddit, my instinct isn't a reliable source. I have a feeling Fantasy leagues would probably demand that one of them play at least 60 minutes of the match, but again, I have no basis for that since I haven't played Fantasy Football in years. – PeeJay 03:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I found this on the Premier League's fantasy rules page (see here, under Rules -> Scoring): "A clean sheet is awarded for not conceding a goal whilst on the pitch and playing at least 60 minutes." So at least from a Fantasy standpoint, you do have to play at least 60 minutes to be credited with a clean sheet. – PeeJay 03:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy football leagues do indeed use 60 mins, but I'm not sure this is indicative of wider usage. My personal opinion is the full 90 mins is needed but that's just my opinion. This is probably the main issue with including clean sheets (especially as a statistic) in articles. Is there some sort of official statistic kept by the league in question? Otherwise may not be source-able. Macosal (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I know this is a different sport, but baseball requires a pitcher be in for the entire game to receive credit for a shutout, no-hitter, or perfect game (though he receives credit for the win or is charged with the loss if he is the pitcher of record for the winning run). Similarly, ice hockey requires the goalkeeper play the entire game to receive credit for the shutout. I would presume the same holds true in football, though my presumptions are as reliable a source as Reddit. If the official report does not credit a goalkeeper with a clean sheey, then that is as reliable a source as we can get. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Fantasy leagues have their own rules, there is no official rule on this sort of thing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing tests in infobox football biographies

Have you noticed edits like this, this, this and this? The IPs always change the placement of |fullname=. SLBedit (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's caused by them using Visual Editor, which randomly sorts infobox parameters when edits are made. It's been a particular problem on football club articles too. Number 57 16:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the ones that are explicitly listed in the TemplateData in the infobox documentation get sorted into the order they're presented there, which is why |fullname= moves up, and any parameters not appearing in the TemplateData, e.g. anything from |clubs3= upwards, get tagged on the end. I'm not competent to fix it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is an entry for this at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback but nothing has happened so far. I've started sorting <templatedata>...</templatedata> and adding entries. If this helps, I will add further parameters. Feel free to revert if I botched something. --Jaellee (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing honours at club articles, yes or no?

I have noteced the improvement of the quality standard at player articles by the insistance of the need to source the honours at honours sections. However, for club articles, I gave a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs and haven't seen any note or mention of it. Is adding a source for the honours at honours sections in club articles welcomed, or unecessary? FkpCascais (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My criteria includes answering whether it improves the article, yes or no. And whether its verifiable, off (generally) the club's own website. If someone's just taking the data off a plaque in the clubrooms, that alone is not sufficient. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Honours are contentious for players because merely being at a team in a particular year doesn't automatically confer the honour, and vice versa sometimes players who have transferred away from a team have been awarded honours in any case due to the way that they qualified (playing minimum games etc). This is particularly problematic with things like the FA Cup where a player may have played for a club in a season, but not appeared in the cup, or the cup final, but did he get a medal? Is that recognised as an honour by anyone? However by the same token, stripping honours out of players I don't agree with where simple sourcing can be achieved (or it is not controversial).

In contrast team honours tend to be well document by at least one source, however there's then an expanded argument over what counts as an honour (smaller clubs will include less prominent trophies that big teams may gloss over when summarising achievements for instance).

Minor note regarding what Matilda just said - primary sources like clubs websites are actually often the least reliable sources (same with FIFA and UEFA sites). They tend to use their own criteria for inclusion, rather than what can be sourced and cited. Ideally other secondary sources should be used where possible. Koncorde (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen an editor go round and delete honours from club pages and player pages because they haven't been sourced! Very often these editors fail to take into account that an external link to the official website will show the honours in their history section. So there is a link to them if you know what you're looking for. I have put a more direct link next to honours on some pages, as one link can provide enough citation than adding citation from each honour. Govvy (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

All information about everything needs to be verified by a reliable source - the club's own website / an external link to a player profile is not enough, it needs to be a reliable, third-party source with a direct in-line citation. GiantSnowman 06:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to the above, not everything needs to be cited as noted at WP:CITE; inline citations are only required for "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations".

Back to the original question, I'd say it's unnecessary in cases where it's patently obvious that the club won that honour (no-one would seriously challenge the record of a club winning the league or the FA Cup unless they were trying to make some kind of point). For minor honours like county cups, it's probably a good idea. However, if it's cited in the history section, I don't think another citation needs to be provided in the honours list. Number 57 09:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Previously discussed this with GS and also don't agree with his stance. Per WP Cite it says to prod for sources, and only remove if the content is contentious. Importantly it stresses this using italics. Koncorde (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Migration to Wikidata

Seeing as @Pigsonthewing: (who made the bot request) refuses to discuss the matter, I thought I would raise this here before I escalate elsewhere - you might have noticed bots making edits like this, where information is migrated to Wikidata. All well and good, vut what about players with incorrect, duplicate, or multiple profiles, as often happens, especially with Soccerbase? GiantSnowman 20:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing I've just thought about - what about when these templates are used as in-line cites as opposed to ELs? GiantSnowman 20:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Where did I refuse to discuss the matter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response... GiantSnowman 20:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: about when these templates are used as in-line cites as opposed to ELs - bot removes ID only when it founds template in External links section. multiple [legit] profiles - yes, it could be the case, when bot should not remove them. But bot already skips articles, if it contains more than one template call in EL section. About incorrect/dublicate profiles - that is case, when Wikidata is really great place, as there we can find such IDs more efficiently and fix them in one place, not in multiple Wikipedias. Anyway, currently the bot skips those articles, where ID here and on WD doesn't match. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Alex Ferguson Success

So, I am wondering if/how many of these sources can be used to show that alex ferguson is the most successful manager. I had a dispute with an editor about the quality of some sources to prove this point about a year ago and dont want to get into that again so figured to get a general opinion first as new sources are now available. Sources are as follows: [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7] (statement in part 2). Davefelmer (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Won most trophies would be way better than most successful. -Koppapa (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about the quality of some of those sources, but Koppapa is right, most successful is not a good term to use as it's opinion rather than provable fact. It may be applicable to say that Ferguson has been called the "most successful" by several sources, but those sources ought to be reputable ones. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it would be acceptable to say "he has been referred to as the most successful manager by....." and give specific names, but they need to be people whose opinions are significant, not just Bob Smith from abc123football.com -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The second line of the lead currently reads "He is regarded by many players, managers and analysts to be one of the greatest and most successful managers of all time", which seems pretty fair and neutral to me. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's better to go for the obvious statements of facts rather than personal judgement in biographies if possible, this is particularly important because recent sources will always be skewed towards more recent managers, and different sources will use wildly different variables for measuring just what exactly qualifies as "success". For instance, it is a fact that Ferguson won the most number of professional football trophies between 1985 and 2012 than any other manager in England, and a lot of sources will reflect that very recent English POV. However sheer volume of trophies is only 1 measure of success (and benefits from a longer career). However he never won the World Cup, and was the Premier League of the same standard throughout his entire tenure? Is it fair to compare European Cup records that allow 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams to qualify with Matt Busby's achievement playing only the best? Is there a manager from South America with a longer career who has won more trophies? etc. It is better to mention if he is officially recognised by any federation, organisation or reputable source with a specific award (such as winning the most PFA Manager, Writers Awards, UEFA awards, FIFA awards, "Premier League Manager of the Season" or "Manager of the Month" awards), rather than just a bunch of randoms doing an op-ed in a magazine or newspaper (even if they are knowledgeable). Koncorde (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So looking at these points, would it be fair to say he "has won more trophies than any other manager" and quote some or all of the sources, as I agree overall success is subjective and not solely based on numerical stats? For further source backup, we can also add this, from The Guardian: [8] (Quote: "the most decorated manager in the history of the sport..." Davefelmer (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any need to change the existing description. Not that trophy counts tell the full picture, I'm yet to see a source listing numbers won that seriously looks outside Europe. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Decorated is not the same as Trophies ('decorated' is closer to 'accolades', so may include monthly awards, yearly, national and international awards).

2. Is he actually the most decorated manager in the history of the sport? It's a brave claim to suggest that Alex Ferguson has definitely won more things than any other manager ever in the world, at any level, during both the amateur and professional era? Who knows? Again, if most trophies and awards only existed in the modern era then that is recent'ism and based around an English POV almost certainly. But "Daniel Taylor of the Guardian called Alex Ferguson the most decorated manager in the history of the sport" or "He has been described as the most decorated manager in the history of the sport" would both be okay, although I would suggest having more than one source for such a claim and it's certainly not a headliner for the start of the article more than is already said (the intro to the article is piss poor to be fair).

3. More practical sentences would be things like "Alex Ferguson has won the most Premier League titles, and led Manchester Utd to X FA Cups, X League Cups, X charity shields during a 26 year period of unparalleled individual domestic success, and also won the Super Cup and European Cup.". And "during his career Ferguson was individually recognised by the Premier League as the Manager of the Season on 11 occasions, more times than any other" and "he was recognised four times by the League Managers Association, more times than any other" and "was awarded a CBE for services to football" most of which appears in some form or other already. Koncorde (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that says what you want to say (that "Ferguson is the greatest manager of all time"). WP:DROPTHESTICK applies. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Except I wasn't saying "Ferguson is the greatest of all time" (for which there are tons of sources). Mine was about solely success and the measurements of it. Some new sources came up recently, so I figured I'd see if these adhered to policy better than ones previously submitted. Davefelmer (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope Solo: discussion about her importance level

There is a discussion about what the importance level of the American Footballer named Hope Solo after an editor decided to increase the importance to high from mid with the comment, "If she isn't a "Top-rated world-class player", who is!?". It was immediately reverted and a discussion ensued. Clarification to how the ranking should be executed should be proved at Talk:Hope Solo#WikiProject Football importance. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And the comment "WP:FOOTY has generally deemed itself irrelevant for women's football / soccer" is interesting. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Qualifying dilemma

Can someone help me on this? Global F.C. qualified to the qualifying play-off in the 2017 AFC Cup by winning the 2016 UFL Cup. But it looks like Global will also win the 2016 United Football League (they are leading six points with two games to go) and the winner of the league will qualify in the group stage of the 2017 AFC Cup.

On the likelihood that Global will also win the League;

1. Where will Global qualify, on the group stage or the qualifying play-off? (They first qualifed in the qualifying play-off for winning the cup, which was held first.)

There are two likely situations that will happen here;

2. If Global will be placed in the group stage of the cup, which team will qualify now for the qualifying play-off, the runner-up of the league or the domestic cup? This looks like the more possible outcome as the group stage is better than the qualifying play-off of course.

3. If Global will be placed in the qualifying play-off instead, which team will now then qualify for the group stage, the runner-up of the league or the domestic cup?

Thanks in advance. I have also put this message on the talk page of AFC Cup but I brought it here because no one is responding there. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Would it not be best to see what the AFC decide and reflect that, rather than making predictions? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd guess 2. since that's what the UEFA Champions League does. But agree, you should wait and see what AFC say. Joseph2302 22:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The AFC generally gives the secondary spot to the league runners up. - J man708 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Medal icons in footballbox

There is a discussion at Olympics project regarding match templates and medal icons, i.e. if they should be shown (diff) or not shown (diff).

This affects football as well so please join at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Medal icons on team sport templates

Captain & Loan template

Does anyone else think {{Loan}} & {{Captain}} is a bit pointless? I suggest deleting. JMHamo (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Secret Agent Julio: as the creator, would you like to explain the need for this template? --SuperJew (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Those should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, not needed. GiantSnowman 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with the above. 'On loan from' seems silly; it doesn't take any effort just to write 'on loan from' like everyone else. Monty (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a bit late, the purpose was not to save time, but was intended to improve the template {{Fs2}}, which does not have a good way to indicate captains in the navbox form. But I just thought of a solution that does not require a dedicated template, so these are no longer necessary. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Football books articles

I have come across a few football books articles that may not be notable. What do people think?

• 43 Years with the Same Bird
• Swindon Town Football Club 100 Greats
• Premier Leech

See also Category:Association football books Eldumpo (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably not notable - see WP:NBOOKS - I suggest some PRODs. GiantSnowman 10:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. PROD posthaste! – PeeJay 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Elneny

Could someone here please take a look at Mohamed Elneny and perhaps respond at thye article talkpage. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

New book:The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer by James M. Dorsey, 2016, Oxford University Press

Spotted a new book:The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer by James M. Dorsey, 2016, Oxford University Press. Possibly relevant to articles in Category:Football in the Arab world and/or for creating an article on Football in the Arab world. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

date format?

User:Joeykai Changed the date format on Cameron Carter-Vickers from DD MONTH YYYY to MONTH DD, YYYY. I know the the player is English and American, but plays in England!! But I always use the first for all football articles. So I am confused, are you suppose to use a different format date for American players? American football(Soccer) articles? Because I use one standard format for all footballer articles. Because Vickers is also English, I am inclined to revert. Govvy (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say use DMY - born & raised in England is more important than his US int'l youth caps. GiantSnowman 19:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's okay either way as long as it's consistent throughout the article --SuperJew (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

k, well I am going to keep things consistent. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but given that he plays internationally for the United States, WP:MOSDATE seems to require m/d/y since the article is about an American, regardless of where he was born, grew up, or plays. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Are his ties to USA stronger than England? Probably not. Should we maintain the date style as used in the origins of the article? Yes. That is DMY. GiantSnowman 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "origins of the article" but the article has used mdy more often than not since its creation. If you mean that the editor who created the article used dmy but it was changed to mdy within days and has largely remained mdy since, then sure. Joeykai (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It was originally DMY and then somebody (oh, look, it's you!) changed it to MDY. It was changed back to DMY and then somebody (oh, look, it's you again!) changed it to MDY. GiantSnowman 06:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems kind of ridiculous to base this decision off the original two sentence stub, and if you are why not go by the first one, which is MDY? On further inspection it seems amazing GiantSnowman that you picked the one revision between the article's creation on 5 November 2015 and the 28 September 2016 when the birthdate was DMY format. Also looking at the history, seems Joeykai is quite a major contributor. Note that I am not saying which format is preferable in my opinion (as I said above I think either is valid as long as it's consistent), but I am claiming that "maintaining the date style as used in the origins of the article" means to use MDY. --SuperJew (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: - please read WP:DATERET. GiantSnowman 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I did mate, and I fail to see how anything I wrote contradicts it. But I'll break it down for you again: If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it - The article clearly evolved using predominantly the MDY format. As said above you picked the one revision in almost a year that used the DMY format. unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page - This I think is the main discussion here, which IMO can go either way as long as it's consistent, but not the point I brought up. The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used - Joeykai is the first major contributer and they used MDY. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor" - The first date format used was MDY. --SuperJew (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: MOS:STRONGNAT trumps DATERET. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@208.81.212.224: - on what basis? GiantSnowman 06:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging anons does not work. They do not have accounts.

Read the guideline it explains that DATERET has "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity)" and the link is to STRONGNAT. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I am so use to one way of formatting, why do Americans have to be different!! :/ He is far more English than American, having lived and grown up in England, just because he chose to play for USA U23 does he really qualify the dam article to be Americanised? I think it should be uniform English! Govvy (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ISO-8601 is different yet again, and is most logical. And him playing for the USA U23 does qualify him to be Americanized just as an Australian who plays for Turkey is considered Turkish, a German who plays for the USMNT is American, and a Canadian who plays for England is English. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

ISO-8601 is for databases, record keeping as well as having other uses. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and date formats should be in readable form that is consistent with the article so ISO-8601 shouldn't be used. I was more interested in the use of date formatting regarding the article I original posted about as it crosses into two different versions of English, however the concern that because an Englishman who doesn't hold American citizenship what so ever is representing America in football due to his father being American. How is an Englishman's article Americanised simply because he plays for USA U23 doesn't make him American unless he has citizenship as well. Which brings me back to my original question. The date format for such an article, and spellings in the article, I am trying to follow all this wiki rules, but using logic to me would be to have all the dates in UK standard formatting as the person in an Englishman who represent America. I just want clarification but have yet to find it. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

ISO-8601 is for many, many things, not just databases. The old reference date format is one of them. Logic would be that the dominant date format should be used across the entire Wikipedia project, and that, by population alone, would dictate the US format: MDY. But we make allowances for those who aren't part of the majority. Date formats should not be discussed on a per-project basis though. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Who are you? Posting under an IP is what I call ghosting and when you're ghosting your whole conversation looses it's weight. Secondly my conversation is about one specific article. You failed to read what I wrote I guess, you are just spouting junk at me as far as I can see, I think WP:STRUCTURE holds more weight over your argument. Govvy (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to sign in to make valid points. FOOTY ignores me when I'm signed-in so it doesn't make much difference to me if you ignore me when I'm signed-out as well. With that said, STRONGNAT wins over DATERET and your player is playing for the US so use MDY format. Cheers. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

He is still English and doesn't have a green card! Go figure! Govvy (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

O, you're Walter Görlitz who created a huge fuss on Toronto FC, why don't you stick to your username I am sure if you behave people will start to like you more!! Govvy (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't from work. And the fuss at the TFC article was created by 1) TFC fans who want their team to carry a team moniker that makes it seem more British or European (or at least international) and 2) non-North Americans who don't understand the sport in the area. I simply requested that WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME be observed. If that's a fuss, get them struck and work at removing WP:NOR and I won't be able to make logical, policy- and guideline-based arguments. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ibrahim Hassan and Hossam Hassan

As I was searching through articles that do not use a comma in the title disambiguation I came across Ibrahim Hassan (footballer, born 1991) and Ibrahim Hassan (footballer born 1991) (the only difference being the comma). I am confused, the latter seems to use "Hossam Hassan" in the infobox, but this is apparently the name of his brother, Hossam Hassan (footballer, born 1989)? There are also twins Ibrahim Hassan (footballer, born 1966) and Hossam Hassan (footballer, born 1966), just to add to the confusion... Secret Agent Julio (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Alphonso Davies nationality

Alphonso Davies is a 15 year old currently playing for Vancouver Whitecaps FC in MLS. He was born in Liberia and moved to Canada at the age of 4. He does not have Canadian citizenship [9] but he has played for Canada U20 in an unofficial friendly. I think that his nationality should be listed as Liberian at this time but User:Walter Görlitz disagrees wishing that the player be listed as Canadian and suggested I raise the issue here. The precedent I can think of for this situation is Tyrone Mears, he played for Jamaica in a friendly but did not have Jamaican citizenship and remains listed as an English player. Another similar situation is Darlington Nagbe who declared his intention to play for the USA before he had US citizenship and remained listed as a Liberian player on here until he was officially capped after gaining citizenship a number of years later. Arials101 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Leave as Liberian and suggest Liberian-born Canadian if ever award a full cap. douts (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Leave as Liberian for now, and suggest 'Alphonso Davies is a professional footballer. Born in Liberia, he represents Canada at international level' if he ever gets an official cap. GiantSnowman 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds a lot better than my suggestion. douts (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Several other precedents Julian Green, Ersan Gülüm although they all represented one country as youth and then another at the senior level. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree, he should be Liberian, with Canada U-20s mentioned in a section of the article, like in Elliott Bennett. Joseph2302 21:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Or don't list his "nationality" as it isn't what he is notable for. In cases such as this it is better to say "Alphonso Davies is a professional footballer player for Vancouver Whitecaps, he has represented Canada at an U20 level. He was born in Liberia and raised in Canada." anything other than that is pointless set-up for an argument. For examples see Diego Costa. Koncorde (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if you don't place emphasis on it in his article every club squad list has nationality flags. In line with the suggestions above he should be listed as Liberian at Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC#Current_roster Arials101 (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

At the age of 15 he represented Canada at the U20 level, so why should be be considered anything by Canadian? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In order to represent a national team, one must be a citizen of that country; this is a FIFA requirement. I find it difficult to believe that Canada would not verify the citizenship of anyone called up to play for them at any level. However, because he is notable for his play in a WP:FPL and not for a Tier-1 International match, his citizenship is not germaine to his present notability. Should he play in a Tier-1 match, then his citizenship contributes to his notability. I concur that presently leaving his citizenship/nationality out of the lead is appropriate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Kit lists in club season articles

What do we think of the kit list at 2016–17 A.S. Roma season#Kit? They include them in the Italian wiki, but from a few big clubs I've searched though here, a list like this hasn't been included. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTGALLERY applies here - include the three outfield kits in the infobox (as is standard) but the rest is too much. GiantSnowman 14:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons has the kits in in the body of the article, rather than in the infobox. Hack (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You mean the MOS that was last updated (substantively) in 2007? GiantSnowman 14:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

So it should be updated? Hack (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Most definitely. GiantSnowman 07:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've updated that article as well. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 11:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. Members here may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African footballers, both male and female for instance. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African footballers, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Soccerbase templates / bot changes

A bot has been making changes on player articles. It's something to do with WikiData, what's the purpose of the change ? (@Pigsonthewing:) TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a link to User:JJMC89 bot/Wikidata external link template parameter removal in the edit summary of every edit the bot makes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Potential vandal

Please take a look at this editor: [10]. He seems to be adding a lot of fake caps and/or clubs to the profiles of some players involved with his favorite Indonesian team. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

All of his current contributions that I checked are unsourced and unverifiable. Not to mention he hasn't updated the timestamp, which seems to be a revertable offence on it's own around here. I don't think reverting is an issue although perhaps a message on the user talk page first wouldn't go amiss. Gricehead (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

He strikes again, this time as an IP editor: [11] -BlameRuiner (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Development squad vs First team

On Barnet F.C. and their website they have listed the first team players, who are all in the first team, I don't understand why User:OGLV splits them. It isn't like that on other club articles from what I can see. I mentioned it on the talk page on Barnet a while back, got no response so I change it back too all First team to keep it simple and easy to see, then he reverted it back. I am curious to know how you guys think it should be done, cheers Govvy (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The club website separates these players out as development squad link. Players with squad numbers are included in the first team page as that is the only page that can accomodate appearance stats etc. OGLV (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Also other clubs with pages laid out like this include A.F.C. Bournemouth and Swansea City A.F.C. OGLV (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but Bournemouth and Swansea's development squad seems to features mostly youth team players without articles. Barnet's development squad seem to be much more involved with the first team so it seems a bit pointless splitting them in two.--EchetusXe 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Mesut Özil

Hi. Could someone take a look at Mesut Özil? Qed237 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Defo warrants a block IMO, but in the meantime suggest "German footballer of Turkish descent" douts (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Or just "a footballer who plays for English club Arsenal and the German national team." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes to ChrisTheDude's suggestion. Don't use nationality as it causes arguments. Joseph2302 16:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with "German professional footballer". He was born and raised in Germany, and plays for their national team. Ethnicity does not decide nationality. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. There's no ambiguity about Özil's nationality. And with many other players, it's quite straightforward and we can just follow Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Born in Germany, raised in Germany, plays for Germany - he is German. The fact he is of Turkish descent should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph per WP:UNDUE. GiantSnowman 20:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

National representation does not decide nationality either Matty (not if we are talking legal nationalities vs declared representative nationalities). For instance every single article on an "English" player says he is English, rather than his legal nationality - British. It's an odd convention. Now in discussion with user BDD over same point. Per many other instances, we have a habit of duplicating nationality in the first sentence "German who plays for Germany" is one of those great ones we see so often across wikipedia. In this case currently Ozil isn't even a "professional" which is an interesting oversight. Koncorde (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "British" in football... GiantSnowman 20:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the British national team at the Olympics, ya? But that point is moot, it was a wider one that we don't follow traditional "nationality" conventions as you have just stated. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A one -off solely because London was hosting, ya? GiantSnowman 20:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Moot if we devolve into warring states, will be interesting to re-categorise players as "Lancastrian"... Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's actually a permanent thing - "England" isn't a country recognised by the IOC, while "Great Britain" is. It's why the English women didn't compete at the Rio Olympics despite having qualified for it through FIFA competitions. -Gopherbashi (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Onur Albayrak

Could somebody pls check whether this player ever played a match in a professional league? The statistics are referenced in the article, but somehow I can not figure this out. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: He hasn't. This stats site shows him playing for his current club in the Danish 1st Division (second tier of Danish football) but only the top-tier Danish Superliga is considered fully pro. And if he'd ever played first-team football for his previous club, Randers FC, it would be listed on that page and he'd be listed on their website among all their first-team players since 2003. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will nominate it for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Lithuania national youth teams kits

Hello guys,

Could anyone help with updating Lithuania national youth teams(U-21, U-19, U-17) kits, which currently are outdated. Photos of current design: Home, Away. Respublik (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Rigobert Song 'death'

Hi all, Rigobert Song might need a bit of attention today. I'm certain that he is still alive; reliable sources are stating that he has recovered from his illness. The article, at the moment, gives some coverage of the rumours of his death. Is that reasonable or should WP:BLP articles not have any mention of these rumours? Spiderone 08:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a ref for his death. Can only assume it is reliable as can find nothing to suggest this particular source is unreliable.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

His "death" is a hoax - see this. We need an actual reliable source, BBC or someone. GiantSnowman 08:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Related to Song, I removed the information about him being Chad manager and put an interview with Chad FA President where he says nothing was ever signed on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, someone's reverted the changes and questioned whether the website is more reliable than the usual suspects (BBC etc.). The website literally has an audio interview with the FA President embedded, I don't know how much more reliable you can get. TheBigJagielka (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

FIFA seem to think he's Chad manager. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That audio interview could be a bit older, they probably signed him some days later. -Koppapa (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: that piece pre-dates the BBC ref used in the article, and it quotes the President as saying "contacts sont en cours mais rien n'a été signé" (talks are ongoing but nothing has been signed), and the piece speculates that "Une signature officielle interviendra-t-elle dans les prochaines semaines ?" (Will an official signing take place in the coming weeks?) Presumably it did. Mr Song took charge of Chad in their next game, beating Egypt in a World Cup qualifier. Don't know if he's really still in post, or if there is still a post: Chad haven't played an international for several months. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Unused fb team templates

Per this discussion and this discussion and this discussion, I have nominated a bunch of unused fb team templates in this thread at TfD. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Derby Lunatic Fringe

I was wondering if we should delete the article and redirect the name to Derby County F.C.#Supporters and rivalry, like we did with Yid Army to Tottenham Hotspur. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, a brief mention in the supporters section is probably warranted. douts (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Also recommend

• Middlesbrough Frontline delete and redirect to Middlesbrough FC
• English Border Front delete and redirect to Shrewsbury Town

-

• Subway Army is redirecting to List of hooligan firms and should be redirected to Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.#Support

Govvy (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyway I went ahead and changed Subway Army to redirect to the right location which the previous admin should of done. Govvy (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, redirect to club article. GiantSnowman 17:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I remove the disambiguation?

I was wondering if I could have a case to remove the disambiguation from Narayan Das (footballer)? The only other page with "Narayan Das" is Narayan Das (politician) and as you can see from that page, there is barely anything compared to the footballer. The footballer is also younger, has more potential of a career to go, and is an India international. The politician is not even alive right now or is retired. I was just wondering if this could have a case just like a page like Tim Cahill has to not be "Tim Cahill (footballer)". Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

For a page to become primary topic, it has to have "long-term significance" compared to the other, so the fact that the politician is dead should not be a reason to assume the other one is the primary topic. You need to decide whether 100 years down the line the footballer will still be more notable than an MP. Number 57 20:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I agree but just putting it out there that I was not trying to say that just because the guy is dead means that Das the footballer is more significant... thus why I put "or retired" cause I have no idea whether the politician is dead or alive honestly. I do believe though that Das does hold more significance than the politician but maybe not enough yet to remove the disambiguation. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that one is clearly the more notable, so I don't see any reason to change the current naming. The politician's article is not very extensive, but he was a member of India's lower house of parliament, which is quite a significant position, and there is probably scope to expand it. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably, I am not very well versed in politics to know. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

international stats in infobox?

At what point is too much? Because an editor added another row for under 15s to Vincent Janssen infobox. There is no information in the article or any citations for these caps. Is it required to have more than U21, U23 (For Olympics?) and the main top level international caps? I really think we should only have those three levels in the infobox for international caps. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's reliably sourced, then any level youth international stats can be included. GiantSnowman 20:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well I was about to rv it and noticed you already did it, then some other guy rv'ed your rv!! heh, I not sure he will add any citations after looking at his talk page!! Govvy (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

He has however added a link to his Netherlands u-16 profile on a dutch website douts (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that really doesn't help the English version of the article!! Govvy (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, Non-English sources are allowed. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Colours in tables

Which of the two tables below do people prefer?

I prefer the version with less colour. It is easier to read tables with black-on-white colouring than it is to read black-on-brown or black on another colour. And the version with less colour still maintains the gold/silver/bronze colouring in one column so that readers can still quickly see their team's results with a visual scan. CUA 27 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the version with less colour is easier to read. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Also agree douts (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Less colour, definitely. GiantSnowman 17:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The more colour seems to be more widespread used. --SuperJew (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant - wide use =/= correct use. GiantSnowman 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Relevant as the question is which do people prefer, if one way is widespread use I would assume most people prefer that way. Personally I have no preference either way. --SuperJew (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as in what does community consensus agree should be used, not what years of random editors/IPs have added. All it takes is one rogue editor to add their personal preference to a heap of unwatched articles... GiantSnowman 17:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The random editors/IPs have as much right as you do to edit pages. --SuperJew (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

But their edits do not determine what is correct. GiantSnowman 18:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That is true, and neither do yours. But the question that was asked here was not about correctness but about preference, as neither option is wrong. --SuperJew (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No, we are attempting to reach WP:CONSENSUS here to decide what should be used... GiantSnowman 18:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Quoting verbatim from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time." This gradual addition and improvement is exactly (to quote you now) "what years of random editors/IPs have added." --SuperJew (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

In terms of building consensus on this issue, I raised the issue on the USWNT talk page and made the change at the page a week ago; nobody objected, and one editor indicated he strongly preferred the change. I then made the change at the USMNT page and nobody objected. Now I'm raising it here for wider input, and I am encouraged by the feedback so far. CUA 27 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the what is used more is a bit of red herring, because users adding/reading the 'more colour' table have not had the chance to see the 'less colour' one. Before I saw 'less colour' - which I prefer - I wouldn't have said that I particularly had trouble with 'more colour'. But comparing the two, yes, I think that less colour is better. There's no reason why we can't start implementing it if agreed here but stop that process if editors seem to dislike it. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Less colour is more appropriate. Colour is only applicable to the result column in my opinion. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the look of the table with less colour. --Jimbo^[online] 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Less is better to read. -Koppapa (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Less colours for me. It looks better and easier to read. I also think it complies better with WP:COLOUR. Qed237 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

More colour

Year	Result	Matches	Wins	Draws	Losses	GF	GA	Coach
1991	Champion	6	6	0	0	25	5	Anson Dorrance
1995	Third Place	6	4	1	1	15	5	Tony DiCicco
1999	Champion	6	5	1	0	18	3	Tony DiCicco
2003	Third Place	6	5	0	1	15	5	April Heinrichs
2007	Third Place	6	4	1	1	12	7	Greg Ryan
2011	Runner-up	6	3	2	1	13	7	Pia Sundhage
2015	Champion	7	6	1	0	14	3	Jill Ellis
Total	3/7	43	33	6	4	112	35

Less colour

Year	Result	Matches	Wins	Draws	Losses	GF	GA	Coach
1991	Champion	6	6	0	0	25	5	Anson Dorrance
1995	Third Place	6	4	1	1	15	5	Tony DiCicco
1999	Champion	6	5	1	0	18	3	Tony DiCicco
2003	Third Place	6	5	0	1	15	5	April Heinrichs
2007	Third Place	6	4	1	1	12	7	Greg Ryan
2011	Runner-up	6	3	2	1	13	7	Pia Sundhage
2015	Champion	7	6	1	0	14	3	Jill Ellis
Total	3/7	43	33	6	4	112	35

International goals

Sorry cause I know this has been discussed before but what is the opinion on international goal tables, like this one? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The table should be presented in the Career statistics section like this. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

EFL Trophy player notability?

Does a player who's played in the EFL Trophy for a Football League side vs. a Championship U23 side, pass WP:NFOOTY? It's a bit of a grey area as players don't pass notability for playing in reserve leagues, so does this still count as a fully-pro competition? The player I'm basically asking about, Nathan Ferguson played for Port Vale against Derby County U23 earlier this season. --Jimbo^[online] 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say no, playing in the EFL Trophy is not notable. The big teams dont even want to participate. Qed237 (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Playing for a Football League team against another Football League teams in this (or any other) competition is notable, as both teams are from FPL and therefore the player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. As the U23 leagues are not FPL, playing for or against them in this competition does not meet NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

When it was just the Championship to league 3 I would say it was fine to count notability. But now I would say no as the new setup has diluted notability. Govvy (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How has it? That's like saying making your debut in a Spurs-Man Utd FA Cup 3rd round is not notanle just because there are some non-league teams in the same round... GiantSnowman 07:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I am saying by diluted, less people know about the U21 or reserve players in the club they support and this is what has happened to the FA Trophy, clubs are no longer using their first team players, that's why I feel the competition notability has been diluted. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Well lets test it out, I have nominated it for deletion.--EchetusXe 18:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say that a player in the league 1 or 2 team should be notable because they are playing for a fully professional team in a fully professional competition. As has been said it would be a bit like making a debut against a non-professional team in the FA cup early rounds. On the reverse side I'd've said any U23 player would need to be in the first team. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge cup matches don't make any player inherently notable, no matter what the cup - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable" - with 'league' being the key word? Of course, competing in a cup game at a significant level is more likely to help a player pass the WP:GNG - not sure the EFL Trophy is at that level Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It has long been held that playing in a Cup competiton between two clubs from FPLs meets the spirit of NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the situation isnt helped by the guideline itself. Why should it be the case that a player fails notability because, for example, he plays in the FA Cup for Everton against Eastleigh, whereas if he played in the same match but the opposition was Luton Town he would become notable? Suggestion - Change the wording of the guideline from Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league to Players who have played, and managers who have managed a fully professional senior team in any competition in which fully professional teams compete. IMO this would clarify both the issue of players playing for a first team against u-23 teams, and vice versa. douts (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That would immediately make 3/4 of the players in the National League notable whereas they aren't at the moment (including those from Eastleigh, ironically :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A brief look through the pages of the National League teams shows that most of the players already meet notability criteria and have their own article. douts (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

-

Is this comp the FA Trophy or are they two diff competitions? As I think I am getting a little confused. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The EFL Trophy and FA Trophy are completely different. The one being discussed here is the EFL Trophy -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

For a while there I thought they were one and the same trophy but just rebranded as it didn't say otherwise. Anyway I am done trying to help with the current season EFL Trophy page, it's so poorly edited and Qed237 just keeps reverting me. I went to the effort of putting in the right dates for the citations and fixing them, he is so blind with rv's he didn't even see I improved the citations. Citations in the middle of a sentence look so bad. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rename?

On another note, after the rebranding and renaming to Checkatrade Trophy I was wondering if the article should be renamed to 2016-17 Checkatrade Trophy? Govvy (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would do this as it's a sponsorship name. The FA Cup article isn't named 2016–17 Emirates FA Cup. LTFC 95 (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite. We avoid using sponsored names in competition titles just as we do for stadiums (where possible). Number 57 11:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

NM, I didn't look at the search terms, I kinda wrote that previous question without much thought. heh, I am just sitting at home coughing my ass off and come down with a bad cold! Govvy (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Lao League

Could someone please have a look? It is not exactly a verbatim copy of Lao Premier League, but both state they are the highest league of professional football in Laos, which can not be correct. Lao League was created today on top of a redirect. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the Lao Premier League was formed in 2013, so was the other one its predecessor? if so, it probably just needs tweaking to say that it was the highest level of football in Laos.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Although there is no single source for a start in 2013. Couldn't find one either just yet. RSSSF named 2015 Premier League. Anyway I would cover all seasons under the premier league article. The Lao League could be a second level league now (or from 2017, though no source is provided). All changes were made by one user. Maybe it is best to revert. -09:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted and re-redirected. If sources are provided and Lao League is the name for a the 2nd level, the redirect could be turned into a second level league article. I'd keep all top-division seasons in the Premier League article though.-Koppapa (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Fawkner SC

Please take a look at Fawkner SC an editor who vandalised Anthony Taylor (referee)‎ (diff), has turned his attention to that club. Qed237 (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Cant find anything regarding honours on the Manningham United Blues FC website, whilst there is honours details on the Fawkner SC site - that said the Manningham United FC page on here is substantially more detailed than the Fawkner page. Havent got the time to look into it in any more detail than that (league websites, FA, etc). douts (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a series of inter-connected Italian-linked clubs that are very messily linked through a series of mergers and splits over a number of decades. There is a flowchart detailing some of the connections here. Hack (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup

The article FIFA Club World Cup needs attention. Qed237 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ivory Coast should be named Côte d'Ivoire

Why do we use Ivory Coast instead of Côte d'Ivoire in the category of football articles? Although Ivory Coast is frequently used in English media, the country's official name, at least in FIFA, is Côte d'Ivoire, and if you see the reporting standard of FIFA, it's always Côte d'Ivoire. Could we change the relative templates to render Côte d'Ivoire? Or is it too cumbersome to make such an overhaul? Sofeshue (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

We use it because it's the most common English name for them. Also, makes sense as we have the country as Ivory Coast. According to Talk:Ivory Coast, there's been 7 move discussions about the name, so I'd say that's a consensus. Joseph2302 17:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There's also the discussion on the national football team's talk page. --SuperJew (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the Internazionale / Inter Milan debate but I'm sorry, Côte d'Ivoire is just gibberish in English, and literally translates as 'Ivory Coast'.--EchetusXe 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Gibberish? You mean French for Ivory Coast. Govvy (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I said it was the literal translation. But ô isn't a letter in English.--EchetusXe 20:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And neither are ö r or ć but we have Motörhead and Nemanja Vidić. It's certainly a legitimate argument that we may want to use it as it is the official name. However, I agree that in this case 'Ivory Coast' is fine as the most common name Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Squad lists shrunken

Hi all. Why are names on squad lists shrunken, such as on FA Cup Final pages? There doesn't seem to be any justification other than "it looks nice". Shouldn't all text on a page be the same size? What benefit does this have within a table? Bobo. 00:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month

Hi, I'm Addis Wang, one of the organizer of Wikipedia Asian Month, which will happen this November. I would like to invite WikiProject Football to collaborate with us in hosting Asian Football Month in November, to encourage editors to help build Wikipedia's coverage of Asian-related football articles. This collaboration may also lead to more editors knowing and joining WikiProject Football as well. On your end, there is not much to do besides encouraging the participants of WikiProject Football to take part in the Wikipedia Asian Month. The Asian Football Month will just observe the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month, and have a guide page on the WAM event page. As an example, we currently have an "Asian Women's Month", which is a similar collaboration with Wiki Women in Red. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions regarding the proposal.--AddisWang (talk) 04:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Portsmouth F.C.

I mentioned on the talk page there, why is the players at world cup list needed? But I got no response. Also now there is a little bit of; players at the Olympic games! Some of the article is over kill, it could do with a bit of a culling! Govvy (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

They're also both unreferenced (the world cup list since 2012) --SuperJew (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well PeeJay went all ruthless on the article, I guess that's sorted, heh. Govvy (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Appearances in EFL Trophy

Following on from the query above, should appearances in the EFL Trophy by an Under-23 player with a Premier League club, be included in a club career statistics table? I'm thinking of Sam McQueen who has played twice this season (scoring once) in the EFL Trophy for Southampton, and made his Premier League debut yesterday. Soccerbase includes them under "other" matches. Sussexpeople (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Would say no as per Soccerway http://int.soccerway.com/players/samuel-james-mcqueen/330395/ which lists his trophy games as Southamton U23, ie a different team and one for whom appearances are not notable.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

An earlier discussion suggested including them, but on a separate row. So that's what I've done at Demarai Gray. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a tough one - that Demarai Gray example looks a bit clumsy to me. My instinct would be either to not include or to list under "other" with a note detailing the specifics of team and competition. Macosal (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say a separate row, crap as it looks, is the best option here - we can't put in "other" as they are (technically) different teams... GiantSnowman 07:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not a note (sup) and put it to other? Kante4 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd also go for the other column. It's the same anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As per the earlier discussion, I would go with the Demarai Gray example above. It should be listed under a separate U23 team. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

EFL Trophy semi-pro?

I just throw this one out there, is this competition a semi-pro one now? Are you calling U23 Academy teams semi-pro and the rest pro? It might help to establish a consensus for the new format of the competition at what level it is for notability guidelines for other articles. Govvy (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Govvy: I'd say if someone plays against one of the U23 teams, that wouldn't count towards notability as it's not an entirely first team match. Number 57 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

We have two separate sections on this page now both essentially asking if appearing in the EFL Trophy this season confers notability. Any chance we could consolidate them all into one......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And that's ignoring the original (I think) one archived here... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

heh, I missed that old one and I asked another question below it!! Hmm, seems there has been plenty of discussion on this part. It seems to me the Trophy is really a semi-pro competition now under the new format. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Well by that logic so is the FA Cup (even in the rounds proper) because it has teams like Westfields in......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Ye, but FA Cup gets way better coverage than the EFL Trophy. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not a competition is semi-professional isn't determined by the level of coverage it gets. Not really sure what your point is there, I'm afraid..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think notability from the competition should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Two first teams playing each other = probably notable. Player in a first team playing an U23 team - debateable. U23 team player - probably not. Number 57 11:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone playing for one of the category 1 academies playing in the Trophy at U23 level is incredibly likely to be on a full professional contract. There won't be many, if any, who are considered good enough to be playing for the U23s still on schoolboy forms. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me out here?

Recently User:Anirban09 literally changed the page Arindam Bhattacharya from a page about a footballer, which is was since 2009, and changed it to a page about some random politician who I am sure is not even notable. Anyway, some reverting and warnings later, I thought fu** it and just had the footballer page go to Arindam Bhattacharya (footballer) and made the page he wanted Arindam Bhattacharya (politician) but he goes on to remove that part as well! And he just does what he wants, he removes the warnings from his talk page by constantly blanking it and looking at his history and username, would not surprise me if he was this politician himself! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I moved the politician back to Arindam Bhattacharya (politician) and turned Arindam Bhattacharya into a disambiguation page, I think that should work. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't his warnings and stuff be re-added to his talk page as well? Also I bet he will just move everything from the politician page to the disambiguation page. Also still not sure how notable the politician is. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, and is normally taken to mean they have read the message. I'll keep an eye on the disambiguation page to make sure he does not transfer the content. Not sure about the notability of the politician, I tagged the article with {{notability}}. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth noting that the politician has two pages (Arindam Bhattacharya (politician) and Arindam Bhattacharyya). User:Ibnbatoota has re-established the page this evening and it looks like it was also used for the footballer at some point. I've nominated the later for deletion. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure a deletion discussion is necessary, I nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:A10. The users Andy3632939, Anirban09, and Ibnbatoota (surely all the same person) seem persistent on these disruptive actions. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough on the blanking... I knew that was a rule but at the time I was not thinking properly. As long as correct actions are being taken I don't mind. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) article

This article is probably going to be in the news a lot today with the announcement of the shortlist. I think it needs to be moved back to Ballon d'Or now it's active again.

Perhaps we should also move FIFA Ballon d'Or to FIFA Ballon d'Or (2010-2015) to avoid any confusion. TheBigJagielka (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Categorization

I have found that there's approximately 800 football player articles that belong to national team player categories (e.g. "Examplia international players") but not to more generic "Examplean footballers" categories. (At the same time there are 39,000+ players that belong to both, as they should). Does anyone feel like creating a bot task to add missing categories? --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts at all on this? --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be good if they could be added back to the "Examplean footballer" category, as that is what this list (and the Scottish one) of missing club categories is run off. Number 57 10:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Another help request

I was going to tidy up the League of Ireland Premier Division 2015 & 2016 and First Division 2015 & 2016 since some of the blue links in the final tables point to the wrong articles i.e., The winner of the 2016 LOI Premier should enter the 2017/18 UEFA Champions League qualifying rounds not the 2016/17 version that it points to at the moment, but all these final tables are like "{{2016 Final Table}}" protected, instead of a table I can edit. How do I get the correct info linked into these tables? XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

On the embedded table, there are three letters "V T E" displayed on the table in the article. V is view to view the table alone, T is talk, E is Edit.

You can find the individual templates here:

• Template:2015 League of Ireland Premier Division table
• Template:2016 League of Ireland Premier Division table
• Template:2015 League of Ireland First Division table
• Template:2016 League of Ireland First Division table

TheBigJagielka (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you TheBigJagielka - XyzSpaniel Talk Page 11:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sahrawi national football team

I thought this got deleted, I was just looking at it and most of the citations are not any good, I thought the article failed notability. Govvy (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably notable after playing in the VIVA world cup. -Koppapa (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It was deleted via AfD in 2011, re-created in 2012, put up for AfD again that year, but the result was "no consensus". -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of the VIVA world cup. What kind of coverage did it have? Govvy (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on number of goals

Hello, I noticed highly questionable edits of IPs on number of goals like this one IP1 or this one IP2 I reverted them all but I found it is very difficult to know if these figures are right or not. Also I noticed that some other IPs were doing similar vandalism at the same time earlier today but I missed them. Mascarponette (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Just checked the soccerway page for Andy Cook, and that one, at least, seems to be a correct update. It looks as though many of the stats for these lower league players havent been updated in quite a while. Either that or editors haven't been updating the date stamp. douts (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

to Douts : number of goals has been updated after your check by an IP for Andy Cook ! also I looked at history of Steve McNulty and there are plenty of similar changes reverted by regular users Mascarponette (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mascarponette: Having checked both soccerway and the Tranmere Rovers website, the info boxes in both of those articles are correct as they stand (as of 30 secs ago), however the stats section for Andy Cook is massively out of date. Wikitables scare me so I wont attempt to update them (dont have the time right now anyhow), but I will watch both pages (and those of other tranmere players) over the next few weeks and keep tabs on them. douts (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

League Managers Association Logo

The LMA logo is wrong but wikipedia won't accept the new one. Please advise how I can change it as I have the correct png file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFarthing12 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarkFarthing12:. You need to go to the file's page and click the "Upload a new version of this file" link. It should be fairly straightfoward after that. Number 57 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

MarkFarthing12 Are you sure the logo is wrong? The logo on League Managers Association matches the one on their website. Joseph2302 12:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Another user changing a vote

See this AfD. Eldumpo had initially voted for delete, as can be seen in the edit history, but an anonymous IP changed it to 'keep' and manipulated what Eldumpo had said. Could an admin look at this please. I've attached a note to this effect but this has already been removed once by Khaled and I'm sure it'll be removed again. Apologies if this is the wrong place; I had no idea where to go to seek help for this. Spiderone 16:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've restored his original !vote. Let me know if it gets changed again. Cheers, Number 57 17:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bill Perry (footballer) - Blackpool, first black goalscorer in FA Cup Final?

Quick question for anyone with any insight. Garth Crooks article currently includes the statement "Crooks is frequently credited as the first black player to score in an FA Cup final for his equalising goal in a 3–2 win over Manchester City in 1981, though this was pre-dated by Bill Perry in 1953." I can see no mention of this in Perry's wiki article, and no obvious source for the claim, but if it is true then it would obviously be somewhat notable. As it currently stands I am going to challenge the comment in the Crooks biography as uncited. Anyone any ideas if this is true? Koncorde (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC) EDIT1: similar claim made for Mike Trebilcock, and talk page on Garth Crooks has a historic debate that came to no solution it seems back in (2009). Koncorde (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC) EDIT2: Albert Johanneson has a very confused claim first of being Black, secondly of African extract, which would suggest Bill Perry being from South Africa was considered not of "African" extract. Anyway, four interconnected articles all quite messy. Koncorde (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well Bill Perry (footballer) says he scored in the 1953 FA Cup Final. However, this may come down to what the definition of "black" is. Was he black or was he Coloured? I don't know enough about the terms to make that judgement. [12] also says that Mike Trebilcock was the first, in 1966. Joseph2302 12:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Bill Perry looks like a white south African to me. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Perry and Treblicock is mixed race, Crooks is black. Sources, and editors, are probably getting terms mixed up. GiantSnowman 19:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Who is Anna Wällersten!?

I created Anna Wällersten because according to this reference she played one match against Denmark at the UEFA Women's Euro 1993. But however she is not named at the UEFA Women's Euro 1993 squads. As I can't find a date of birth and more information I don't know how to fix this issue. Does someone know? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

She didn't play at Euro93 because Sweden didn't qualify for the finals. The match Ms Wällersten played in was a qualifier. The Swedish FF site tells us how many international caps/goals she has, but doesn't have personal details (or if it has, I didn't find them). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

googling her with addition of site:svenskfotboll.se or mff (one of her clubs) included brings up some results. -Koppapa (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Injured players in current squad

@Besteirense: I don't think it's worth mentioning injured players like this, per WP:NOTNEWS. And even if it is worth, it could be added to the current season article or to the players' articles. SLBedit (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct, we do not list "injured" players - stuff goes out-of-date quickly and sourcing can be an issue, but basically it's overkill. GiantSnowman 21:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It comes up from time to time, and the symbols get removed, see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 43#Injury icons in rosters, but over time they creep back in. Apart from the unsourced, recentist objections, that's the Red Cross symbol, whose use is governed by international law (as per the template at the image description), so we shouldn't be using it at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

West Midlands (Regional) League season articles

Are there any good reasons why the season articles, e.g. 2016–17 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division, for the West Midlands (Regional) League include Premier Division within their titles? There are 17 leagues within the English Football System which contain divisions at Step 5 and/or Step 6, and the West Midlands (Regional) League is the only one whose season articles' titles contain anything other than the Season and the League Name.

For consistency across all 17 sets of season articles, I suggest that the words Premier Division be dropped from the titles of this league's articles.

• The season articles for two of the remaining 16 leagues include details of only a subset of the leagues' divisions, and in neither of these cases is the subset spelt out in the titles, as is done for those of the West Midlands (Regional) League.

• Should it ever be thought desirable, the absence of a division name from the title would enable details of the Step 7 division to be added to the articles of the West Midlands (Regional) League, as has been done in the season articles for a further two leagues.

• The task of changing the names would not be great (and I would be prepared to do it myself) as so far there are only three such season articles for the West Midland (Regional) League. Drawoh46 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate (and I have nothing against this league - my village has a team in it!), should we even have individual season articles for such a low-level league........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: That is, of course, a completely different subject. My understanding, having read a number of sections (since archived) on this page, is that one of the criteria for a football club to be deemed notable is that it has competed in its country's major cup competition, and I believe I saw that extended to playing in a division whose members are at liberty to apply to play in such a cup competition. This makes all clubs (apart from reserve teams) which play at Step 6 notable, and indeed I believe that all such clubs playing in any of the fourteen Step 6 division have dedicated articles (albeit small, in some cases). Consequently all leagues which have a division down to and including Step 6 have season articles. Although my second bullet point above made a reference to extending an article to include a Step 7 division, I was certainly not advocating such a step; I was merely pointing out that such an extension would become possible should it ever be thought desirable, following the example of the season articles for a couple of the other leagues. Thanks for your comment! - and good luck to your village team, whichever one it is  :) Drawoh46 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Historically correct names for Japanese leagues/divisions

Having a bit of a disagreement about what name should be used for the top Japanese league division in stats tables.

Background as follows: At Mark Bowen, User:Gonta-Kun changed the name for the 1997 J.League to J1 League, which is the current name; I changed it back, with edit summary "was still called just J.League in 1997, wasn't it?" They didn't revert. Then, at Piotr Świerczewski‎, they changed the name for the 1999 J.League Division 1, again to J1 League. I changed back, again for historical accuracy, according to the contents of the J1 League article, which says the name was changed in 2015, which is reflected in the season article naming: 2014 J.League Division 1, but 2015 J1 League. They wrote me a note, to which I replied, and they suggested that although J.League Division 1 was the official name until 2015, it was commonly known as J1 League from 1999.

Sorry for the wall of background... I don't want either of us to get any closer to an edit war than we are already, so I'd appreciate some uninvolved input. Pinging @Gonta-Kun: cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the name of the league at the time should be used. It would look silly to have someone's stats in the Alliance Premier League be recorded as "National League". Number 57 11:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

J1 League full name was "J.League Division 1" from 1999 until 2014. But, we already commonly used name "J1 League" like this from 1999. We do not have to use long full name in statistics table. thanks, --Gonta-Kun (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, I'm sure you're right that in Japanese, people used a shortened form instead of the full name, but I can't find any evidence of English-language written sources using "J1 League" until at least 2010, and even then they usually establish context by using the full name first.

I don't understand why you don't want the proper name used. Is it to save space? or do you think it's actually wrong? We're writing for the general reader of English, and writing about 1999 using a name that didn't come in until 2015 doesn't help the reader to understand a topic they may know little about. Nor does it do much to enhance Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

F.B.K. Kaunas

What should be done with F.B.K. Kaunas – rename to FBK Kaunas (2013–) or WP:AfD? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps rename the first team FBK Kaunas (1960) and the current team FBK Kaunas? (like Airdrieonians F.C. (1878) and Airdrieonians F.C.) --SuperJew (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Or just merge the two, seeing as one was formed to replace the other, along the lines of Bradford Park Avenue A.F.C. etc. Number 57 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Number 57 on merge. (I'd merge Airdrieonians too, is their story much different from Rangers?) --BlameRuiner (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, they have the same shortname and team colors. But other than that? New club, new players, new stadium, new people directing the club. (This strangely mentions another club history.) If a second level team is notable in Lithuania, I'd keep them apart for now and use SUperJews naming proposal. If they are non notable, they could be mentioned in a sentence in the lead of the old team article. Someobne who reads Lithuanian has probably more to say. -Koppapa (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Results by Round

Any contributions to the discussion here would be appreciated. I don't think I'm going to get anything out of the original editor or any of the other 2 or 3 regular editors at Brazil Série A.

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

U-17 World Cup qualification tournament put up for deletion

The article 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament qualification, part of the qualification process for the 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament and 2001 FIFA U-17 World Championship has been nominated for deletion by administrator user:Fram because "The qualification phase for an U-17 tournament (except perhaps the world cup) lacks the necessary notability for an article.".

I'm interested in your thoughts on this. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! It's not really a "World Cup qualification tournament" of course, it is a tournament to decide who can participate in the worldcup qualification tournament (the 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament). Anyway, what matters is whether the qualification has received significant attention (not just passing mentions and inclusion in football databases). Fram (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Should KEEP. If the main tournament is notable, then the qualification to that tournament is also notable. All current qualification and pre-qualification tournaments for U17, U19, U23 and Senior Mens have articles for most if not all conferderations (and most of the Womens as well), the issue is really whether to apply notability as far back as 2001. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"If the main tournament is notable, then the qualification to that tournament is also notable." That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited. That we have other similar articles is also not a convincing argument. There is a fair chance that e.g. 2000 AFC U-17 Championship qualification is also not notable, but the one under discussion just happened to be in the New Pages queue. Fram (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It should not be deleted. It is a notable tournament, so is the qualifying. Kante4 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a strange echo effect around here. "It is a notable tournament, so is the qualifying" is not an argument, it is an empty statement. Notability is not decided by "because I say so" or even "because the project says so". Fram (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with keeping, or perhaps merging with the parent article on the grounds that the qualification stages are a fundamental part of the tournament - which is why the "main" stages of the World Cup and the Euros are both frequently referred to as the finals. douts (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

the strange echo effect of opinions from more than one Editor who happen to have a contrary view. At minimum, MERGE with the parent article, if notability is not inherited, then simply consider the qualification stage as a separate stage in the overall event. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep. The qualification phase is an integral part of the competition, as it shows how a team is qualified to play in the final phase. The CONCACAF officials didn't just organize the final phase. They actually sat in conventions to discuss the format, the draws, the dates, etc for the qualifying phase. That page is NOT "the qualifying of the qualifying of" FIFA U-17 World Cup; it is a qualifying phase of a continental youth competition, organized by the continental governing body. This is like the Extra Preliminary Round in the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup should not be regarded as the qualifying of qualifying of .... qualifying of (13-fold of qualifying) the Cup final. Sofeshue (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Messi Goals Career"

Could someone from the WikiProject please look at Messi Goals Career – I'm sure the editor who created it did so in good faith, but I can't believe it's necessary to detail every single goal scored by Lionel Messi during his career, particularly as they are all unsourced. I would have thought the standard summary under the statistical section in the main Lionel Messi article would suffice, and this new article can be deleted or redirected. Richard3120 (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me way too much per WP:NOTSTATS --SuperJew (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 05:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently he only ever scores before the opposition, too! Every goal he has listed is before his team has conceded. Dunno if I believe that... Also, the article is title gore as fuck. - J man708 (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Countries at international tournament years

What is the consensus on 'COUNTRY at the YEAR TOURNAMENT' articles? I see this style used sometimes on other language wikis for major tournaments, and there are only few on the enwiki. For multi-sport competitions like the Olympics, this seems notable, but I do not see as much value for just a short football tournament, as it could be covered in 'COUNTRY at the TOURNAMENT' style articles. Maybe in some instances it could be notable, mainly for the World Cup, but my main concern is Israel. In all their history, the men only qualified for the 1970 FIFA World Cup, and the women have never qualified for a major tournament. Yet there are 39 articles on specific tournament years and 3 articles on overall tournaments they have never even participated in.

Israel articles

• FIFA World Cups
  • Mandatory Palestine at the 1934 FIFA World Cup
  • Mandatory Palestine at the 1938 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1950 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1954 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1958 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1962 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1966 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1974 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1978 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1982 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1986 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1990 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1994 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 1998 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 2002 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 2006 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 2010 FIFA World Cup
  • Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup
• Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup
  • Israel at the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup
  • Israel at the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup
  • Israel at the 2007 FIFA Women's World Cup
  • Israel at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup
  • Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup
• Israel at the UEFA European Championship
  • Israel at the 1996 UEFA European Championship
  • Israel at the 2000 UEFA European Championship
  • Israel at the 2004 UEFA European Championship
  • Israel at the 2008 UEFA European Championship
  • Israel at the 2012 UEFA European Championship
  • Israel at the 2016 UEFA European Championship
• Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship
  • Israel at the 2001 UEFA Women's Championship
  • Israel at the 2005 UEFA Women's Championship
  • Israel at the 2009 UEFA Women's Championship
  • Israel at the 2013 UEFA Women's Championship
  • Israel at the 2017 UEFA Women's Championship

Surely these are not all notable? Participating in qualifying campaign is not the same as the final tournament, it seems a bit excessive. These style of articles are meant for multi-sport competitions, not an unsuccessful attempt at entering into a major tournament. There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, but the nomination process was a disaster. Thoughts? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

They should be deleted, overkill. Any relevant info should be compiled into the national team's wider season articles (see e.g. England national football team results – 2000s). GiantSnowman 08:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete those where they did not qualify, other can stay. Kante4 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kante4. Participating in qualifying is something that (almost) every affiliated nation does, and therefore rather commonplace (read: not notable). However, an article on each team's path to each tournament (preferably restricted to the men's and women's versions of the World Cup and the top level continental competitions) is quite useful and informative. – PeeJay 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think commonplaceness is related to notability. The question I think should be about the coverage of the events. In Israel's event (as an Israeli), every soccer match (even the friendlies) are big events extensively covered in the media, talked about for weeks before and days after and all the calculations and games analysed, and therefore I think would have notability. --SuperJew (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Like PeeJay said, every other nation goes through a qualification campaign, I see nothing specifically notable about Israel. And as GiantSnowman mentioned, any relevant information could be added to Israel's results pages instead of being separated into 34 different articles, making it take longer to find information. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I lived in Israel for several years and the coverage qualifying matches got was probably less than England qualifiers get here. I think the articles should be deleted. Number 57 00:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Another former Israel resident here: agreed, delete. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I nominated the articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination). Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

A complicated AfD situation

I've listed Derby Africa for AfD as opposed to redirect (it is a duplicate of the notable Cairo Derby). I can't find any evidence that the Cairo derby is called 'Derby Africa'. If anyone can find reliable sources that it is also known by this name then I'll be happy to change my stance. For reference, here is a link to the AfD. Many thanks, Spiderone 15:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

This is further complicated by the fact that Derby Africa is currently undergoing a merge proposal, although this has been going on for 10 months now with little to no progress made. Does anyone know if I should have waited for that proposal to reach its outcome before proceeding with the AfD? Spiderone 15:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Bernardo Silva and Diego Lopes

Do anyone knows who is Bernardo Silva, Monaco player, scored some Champions League goals recently? What about Diego Lopes? Probably didn't know but Diego Lopes played at the same time of Bernardo Silva at Benfica, and was actually the reason that Bernardo Silva only appeared at age 19. He always played first choice at U15 and U17, and only when he left, that Silva got his chance. 3 years later, one is a CL player and other is without club. I tried to add content to Diego Lopes page, and one of things I add was that he played ahead of Bernardo Silva in the youth teams, which I thought gave a good idea of how highly rated he was back then. P3DRO thinks Silva doesn't not belong because it article is about Diego Lopes, what should we do?--Threeohsix (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica Juniors - notable players

Since P3DRO (talk · contribs) is ignoring me at the article's talk page, I request your input about the criteria to be used for notable players. SLBedit (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, the section is unsourced. SLBedit (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why is the under-19 team even notable? GiantSnowman 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it's notable? At least there are many news websites talking about "benfica juniores". Should (club) under-19 teams be deleted from Wikipedia? SLBedit (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IMO, both opinions raised swing towards one side or the other. As you said, 25 caps for the senior team could leave out players who leave without playing much for Benfica but after that develop into great players who you'd expect in a "notable players" section. On the other hand having international caps tends to swing away from the better sporting nations. For example on the United page referenced they have Gerard Piqué who played 84 matches for Spain as well as 12 Premier League matches and 250 La Liga matches, while on the other hand also Jamie Wood is there, who played 2 matches for Cayman Islands, a handful of matches in the Belgian league and around 260 matches in England's lower tiers. I would argue these players are not the same level, as in if Wood was Spanish he wouldn't of been called up to the national team. I think the method of 200+ caps for top level clubs is a good criteria. --SuperJew (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Czech Cup with excessive details

On the page 2016–17 Czech Cup, there may be excessive details for the first three rounds, as they involving tier 4, 5, 6 teams. Basically, I think only the results (plus the date range for each round) should be documented. Since I am not a frequent editor, I wonder if there are guidelines regarding the level of details for football articles. Sofeshue (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be inclined to de-redlink it and perhaps just list the results for the prelim and first rounds - unless someone can fill in the relevant info regarding stadia, refs etc. douts (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what detail is excessive? It looks fine to me. Number 57 11:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The only real issue I can see is the huge number of red links and having the collapsible feature with nothing there when you expand it. Nothing wrong with it in terms of content imo, just cosmetic issues. douts (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

They're valid redlinks, so that's not really an issue. Most of the ones I clicked on to expand had content – for those that don't, hopefully it will make someone think it's worth filling in. Number 57 18:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

For the first rounds (preliminary, first, second) I think it should be in a table form unless someone has a source for details, such as goalscorers and such. Currently IMO the footballbox form doesn't add. --SuperJew (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The first few matches of the first round even contain goalscorers, in redlinks of course, which I think is excessive. These are amateur players and probably will never make a name. The table form in 2015–16 Czech Cup should be better. And BTW, 2015–16 Czech Cup is seriously outdated. Could someone take some time to update it? Sofeshue (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Leinster Senior Cup seasons

I've just noticed there are several season articles for the Leinster Senior Cup -

• 2010 Leinster Senior Cup
• 2011 Leinster Senior Cup
• 2012–13 Leinster Senior Cup
• 2013–14 Leinster Senior Cup
• 2014–15 Leinster Senior Cup
• 2015–16 Leinster Senior Cup

There are also several articles on individual final matches -

• 2011 Leinster Senior Cup Final
• 2013 Leinster Senior Cup Final
• 2014 Leinster Senior Cup Final

Are these articles really notable? English county cup season articles are quickly deleted. For what it's worth, I'd love to do season articles for the Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup, but I understand they are not deemed notable enough. Kivo (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so and would support their deletion. Number 57 13:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NSEASONS, they should be redirected to the main article (in this case Leinster Senior Cup (association football)) rather than be deleted, but I agree they're not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The finals are obviously not needed, but i guess the season articles are fine with top level teams participating. -Koppapa (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Further I see no difference to Level 10 English league season articles. I have commented on 1st AfD, won't on all of them though. Can't they be grouped together by an admin? -Koppapa (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Kivo: @Number 57: Here we go again ! Once more articles regarding Irish association football are being targeted by editors who know little are nothing about the topic and have not even done basic research. For one thing Leinster is not a county. It is a province made up of 12/15 counties. The Leinster Senior Cup is the oldest surviving association football competition in what is now the Republic of Ireland. Along with the FAI Cup and the League of Ireland Cup it remains one of three top cup competitions in the Republic of Ireland. Participants include clubs from the top three levels in the Republic of Ireland football league system. Recent winners include Dundalk F.C. who are currently playing in Europe. It should not be compared to a mickey mouse county cup like the Sheffield & Hallamshire Senior Cup which features no mark clubs from levels 5-11 the English football system, none of whom, correct me if I am wrong, are currently competing in Europe. Unlike the Leinster Senior Cup, none of the "Senior" clubs from Sheffield & Hallamshire even compete in this cup. The season articles should not be deleted as they perfectly notable but I have no objection to the finals articles being merged with the relevant seasonal articles.Djln Djln (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Speaking of editors who "know little are nothing about the topic", you may be interested to know that many county cups do feature Football League teams, but we still don't consider them notable enough for season articles. Number 57 14:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Number 57: Leinster is NOT a county. Some English county cups may feature one or two league clubs of note but the Leinster Senior Cup features ten League of Ireland clubs. This is the equivalent of saying a competition featuring half the teams from the EPL and Championship would not be notable. Djln Djln (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I never said it was a county. And no-one is saying the competition isn't notable – the question is whether the seasons are. Number 57 15:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
        • If the competition itself is notable then so are seasonal articles Djln Djln (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
          • They are not, as demonstrated by the point about county cup articles made by Kivo at the start of this discussion. Number 57 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Again Leinster Senior Cup is NOT a county cup. You seem to keep missing this point. Completely inappropriate comparison. You cannot compare a provincial competition featuring level 1–3 teams to a county competition featuring level 5-11 teams. Djln Djln (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
            • And again, I didn't say it was a county cup. The point was that being notable enough for an article does not mean season articles are notable. I hope this is clear enough now? Number 57 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I tried to merge above discussions, as suggested by @Koppapa: above, but @Number 57: chose to revert merger. Really pointless having multiple discussions about same topic when they should be in just two discussions. Number 57, you are just demonstrating how petty, ridiculous and childish Wiki has become. Djln Djln (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
          • You cannot merge multiple AfDs that are already several days into discussions and have had comments from several editors. Number 57 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
            • All comments by the various editors were included in merged version. You are just being awkward for the sake of it. Djln Djln (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
              • Yes, but not all editors commented on every individual AfD, so your merger meant that you were making comments on other editors' behalf. It was clearly an inappropriate move to merge them, and it's concerning that you can't see that. Number 57 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
                • Again you are just being awkward for awkward sake. I hope you are not accusing me of falsifying other editors comments. That is a serious allegation to make and completely baseless. By having numerous discussions in multiple places I believe you are deliberately trying to dilute the discussion so it goes in your favour. I was trying to do the most appropriate thing as suggested by another editor. I am concerned for you that don't seem to know the difference between a county and a province. You keep drawing comparisions between a county cup and a provincial cup, if that not calling it a county cup, then what is ? DjlnDjln (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
                  • I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply stating what you did – there were several AfDs on similar topics and some editors had only commented on some of them; your merger meant that they had apparently commented on all of them, which was not the case. And I've stated repeatedly that I know this isn't a county cup – and I have not compared it to one either – I was simply making the point that not all competitions that are deemed worthy of an article are worthy of having season articles and giving an example. Number 57 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree. DjlnDjln (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Djln's comments on this one. Firstly, it definitely seems as if those in favour of deleting it are comparing the Leinster Senior Cup to England's county cups. Even if not directly calling Lenister a county, it is implied as one or at least at the same level, which is not true as it is a province (1 of only 3 in the Republic of Ireland, as far as I can tell). Secondly, it is getting rather tiring that level 10 teams in England get an automatic pass, while elsewhere people creating content have to constantly war against deletion requests. I can understand if you don't want to add to football in countries which you know less about, but please stop actively hurting the process. Also, this is usually done in crude ways (like a lot of templating users), which doesn't promote people to continue contributing. Thirdly, these should definitely be in one AFD. I don't understand what the problem is with merging them, copying all the users' comments (with many of them being repeated in each AFD as they are basically the same question) and redirecting all entries to one. Lastly, the arguments against deletion are "it's not notable" and "I don't think it's notable" with no further explanation, while the arguments for keeping are much more explained. --SuperJew (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• @SuperJew: Thank you DjlnDjln (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 30, 2016

Scotland national football team survived a Featured Article Review back in 2008. Possible broken links in the refs are some of the www.scottishfa.co.uk links, and numbers 32, 43, 65, 79, 113, and 120. Ref 14 may be paywalled. - Dank (push to talk) 00:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Kovox90 disruptive editing on Robert Arboleda article

Recently Kovox90 has been disruptively editing on the Robert Arboleda article, he removed a perfectly valid image 1 which I responded to by leaving a message on his talk page here. However Kovox90 never responded so after a couple days I undid his edit. Kovox90 immediately undid the edit and even though I pinged the editor with another message, this time on the article's talk page, Kovox90 has not responded to that one either. A quick look at Kovox90's talk page shows that this has happened before. Any suggestions on what I should do?

Leave it alone. The image is blatant copyvio. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks Struway2, I had not realized the image was a copyright infringement, I just wish that the editor told me off the bat to avoid the confusion. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

All of which confusion could be avoided if people used Edit summaries.... Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Supporters' Shield

Should we be listing the Supporters' Shield as a "Qualification" on the MLS season articles? The A-League is a similar system with a post-season playoff series defining the official winner of the season, and the trophy given to the round robin winners there aren't listed as Qualifying for the Premier's Plate - J man708 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't include it. The fact they win their x-th supporters shield can be explained in a line of text above the table. -Koppapa (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit weird to have listed on there. It shits me that the US system shows W-L-D, instead of the rest of the world which shows W-D-L... Anyway, taking out the Supporters' Shield from the Qualification column, it allows it to adjoin the other rows of clubs qualifying for just the Champions League. - J man708 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Cameron Carter-Vickers

An editor went and restored a Sunday youth team to Vickers profile in the infobox, I was pretty sure they shouldn't be included, but wanted to double check. Govvy (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem if it's sourced, especially as it's in his youth career section. Number 57 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"On the football scene, Cameron first played for Catholic United, a local Sunday team he joined through his primary school, before arriving at Spurs at Under-10 level." That's what it said in the source he provided. I question it, because it's a very young level. Govvy (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Current stage or qualified stage?

Currently 2016–17 Arsenal F.C. season and 2016–17 Atlético Madrid season display different information with regards to the current stage in the Champions Leauge. Both sides have qualified for the round of 16, but Arsenal's stage is shown as the Group Stage and Atletico's has been updated to the Round of 16.

My edit to Arsenal's page to reflect the fact that they've qualified has been reverted. I just wanted to see what exactly was correct for consistencies sake. LCrowter (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As there are games left to play still in the group stage, I'd say the current stage is group stage. --SuperJew (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

In the infobox? Well it's a matter of taste. Why not add a word to explain, like advanced to Round of 16 or will advance from Group stage. -Koppapa (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As the infobox is meant to reflect how the far a team has/had progressed in a competition, my opinion is it should state Round of 16. The fact that it's written in italics means the competition is still in progress and the team is still involved. I would suggest you try to find previous consensus on the issue before proceeding. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Group stage until the last match is played. Kante4 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely though, given that Arsenal are referenced as being in the Third Round of the FA Cup, it would suggest that the currently qualified stage is correct? LCrowter (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

They are starting in this round. When they won their third round match, it can be changed. Same for the UCL, wait until the last game is/was played. Kante4 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Until last group stage match is played, the current round is group stage. Qed237 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Football club season

Does anybody know why that infobox on 1987–88 Port Vale F.C. season has such a small width for text on the left-hand side? So Football, League, Third, and Division all occupy a different line? Because I sure don't!--EchetusXe 21:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

No idea, but one way to force the infobox to the width you want is to use {{nowrap}}. This is an example of using it on the Player of the Year row. You could use it on another one depending on what width you wanted to get to. Cheers, Number 57 21:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it seems it's because there are two top goalscorers, and the text entered to that row ("Darren Beckford / David Riley (10)") is automatically nowrapped in the template code following these edits by Unikalinho – because this is wider than the usual text, this means the width of the left hand column is hugely reduced. You can override this by introducing a break after the slash. Number 57 21:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It'd be better if that (undiscussed, unexplained) forced nowrap were reverted. It looks truly awful at 1924–25 Birmingham F.C. season, with three joint top scorers, even on a wide screen: I hate to think what it does on a mobile device. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Caretaker vs interim

If "caretaker" is used in UK and "interim" is used in US, why is interim being used in {{Manchester United F.C. managers}}? SLBedit (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I would change that. Caretaker is more common in British footballing terminology. LCrowter (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If the club name a caretaker manager whilst they are looking for a new manager, then it should state caretaker. However, if a club appoints an interim manager, until the end of the season for instance, then it should state interim. In other words, use what the citation says. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this was discussed many times at this very talk page (and can be found in the archive). The consensus is basically what LTFC said. When a club hires someone from the outside (like Hiddink in Chelsea last year), he is an interim manager, and when they appoint someone who's already in the staff (like Giggs in Man Utd) then he is a caretaker. -BlameRuiner (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Name correction?

Hey guys, do you think that the player's name is Freddy Vava or Fedy Vava? Is anyone good at doing a mass-change for what I assume is the incorrect name on most articles? Cheers! - J man708 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks boss! - J man708 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Facebook and football

Does anyone else see Toonvandriel's recent additions as trivial or am I out to lunch again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Unless these details are covered somewhere other than facebook itself, this definitely needless trivia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Fastest goals in association football

I have recently come across above article after one of my countrymen scored an exceptionally quick international goal and became worried at the state of it. It has many issues with sourcing, original research and inclusion criteria. The core of the problem seems to be that there is no clear vision about what qualifies for inclusion or not. As a result of that many junior and amateur level goals with unverifiable timing information are included, so of which don't even count as the matches were voided afterwards. To make a worthy encyclopedic inclusion of this article I think it would need a considerable overhaul. I think we should only list goals from professional games, recognized by the sports governing bodies. I have no qualms of listing goals from women's football as well, but I do think It would better to make an independent table for them. Any thoughts? Tvx1 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can't really go faster than hit the goal from kick-off. Bet you find 10 goals on youtube of this type. Those usually are about 2 seconds. The list is kind of crazy with some goals having hundredth of a second as timing. Football only really uses minutes, the TV has seconds but that's it. And when doyou even start and stop timing? When referee whistles, first touch, ball crosses line, referee awarding the goal? I also like "Fastest goal ever scored from Offside." with a youtube reference only :D -Koppapa (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, an encyclopedia entry isn't really interested in all sorts of quick goals. It should list goals officials recognized by the relevant governing bodies (FIFA and the continental confederations).Tvx1 20:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. supporters

I removed Harry Kane from the article a few times, a picture of someone wearing a football shirt for a club doesn't mean they support that club. I've seen plenty of celebs given team shirts to wear, unless he otherwise states he supports Arsenal I feel the citation is not good enough, [13]. It's out of context and every so often some IP restores it. I really don't want to edit war, but I consider the talksport article gossip and unreliable. I would appreciate some help. Govvy (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. SLBedit (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

?? no input? I guess I shall remove him again... Govvy (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Whilst Talksport itself is reliable IMO, when it comes to a question of who a player supports only a something from the player himself or his immediate family should be considered reliable I think. He have been an Arsenal fan as a kid but plenty of people change their allegiance as they grow up. Keep removing. I would imagine WP:BLP would cover it. douts (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war either and have already stated that I was open to the removal of Harry Kane from the list. I invited Govvy several times to discuss the matter on the Talk page but unfortunately he/she repeatedly ignored my requests and would revert the edits. I am glad to see that someone neutral is in agreement that Harry Kane was an Arsenal fan when he was a kid. I think it is pretty clear he was given that he even dyed his hair red! This is not a case of "celebs given team shirts to wear", he was not famous in 2004. Unfortunately Harry Kane's statements on the matter have inconsistencies. Would it be reasonable to put Harry Kane back on the list but this time include a footnote explaining that he was once an Arsenal supporter but it's unlikely that he still is? 200.118.133.162 (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The article should be treated in the same way as BLP's, the citations should be from independent reliable sources that are clear. I see a multitude of problems with the whole article since it's inception, first I think it's WP:listcraft, then people are being added with citations which aren't even citations, some are just linking straight to their twitter account. Other citations are deadlinks, many seem unreliable. The citation in question over Harry Kane is really just a photo. You need clear precise information, a statement from him saying that he supports Arsenal, or you might think the photo is from red-nose day!! I don't even like the second paragraph in the lead. "Many fanzines, blogs, podcasts and fans websites have been dedicated to the club and the fans have long-standing rivalries with several other clubs;" . That sentence in it's self needs a multitude of citation in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Module notes again

Here, it became clear that not all kinds of notes in a module-generated table can be combined into one, and then User:Qed237 kindly edited the module to enable it to combine the notes I wished to get combined.

Now, I think it would be a nice idea to combine the two virtually identical notes at {{2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONMEBOL table}} on the two matches forfeited to Bolivia for the same reason and with the same decision by FIFA.

So, we would need a combination of two match notes – |match_BOL_PER_note= and |match_CHI_BOL_note= – and no other notes. But the module can't do that. Can it be enabled to do such a combination? --Theurgist (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Theurgist: It should be possible, but my lack of time at the moment makes me have to put this on hold for a while. If someone else wants to have a look, feel free to do it. Qed237 (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A quick look took me to row 412 in Module:Sports table where we check if match_note already exists, but only compare to other notes. Could be that. Qed237 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The short time I had, I could not find a solution. If anyone is good at Lua, please take a look. I have asked User:CRwikiCA for help. Qed237 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Futsal?

Hi all. Does playing for a futsal national team count for WP:NFOOTY? I ask this because Sander.v.Ginkel has being creating mutiple articles on Malaysian female futsal national team players (see Category:Women's futsal players and Malaysia women's national futsal team) who don't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY in any other way. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I though they were. Would be great to know, as I'm willing create many more of them. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

may be WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG applies. Matthew_hk tc 10:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say the crux of the matter is: is futsal football, or is it a separate sport? Is WP:NFOOTBALL even an appropriate guideline to apply? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Futsal is a recognised variant of footy, so to my mind the question we should be asking is how to FIFA categorise futsal games? If FIFA class them as Tier 1, then the women mentioned above would pass WP:NFOOTY. douts (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Futsal is a variant of football. But the NFOOTY guideline was written to deal with association football/soccer, to try and establish a cutoff point at which GNG was likely to be satisfied by association football/soccer players satisfying NFOOTY. It never considered variants, so its provisions don't and can't apply to futsal or other variants. In the long term, people might want to try and draw up a suitable guideline. In the short term, I'd argue that GNG needs to be demonstrated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Protect Sead Hakšabanović

Can anyone protect the article of footballer Sead Hakšabanović, IP adresses constantly adds information about his herritage without any sources.

How did I guess before I'd even looked that it would be the addition of claims that he was of Albanian descent? Must be psychic..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You can ask at WP:RFP. --SuperJew (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've improved the page a little bit. I can't read (and understand) Swedish, so a few more references to it would do well. MYS77 ^✉ 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos. Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

youth level information

At what age level should it be relevant to an article? Because Cameron Carter-Vickers has Catholic United in the youth career in his infobox, That's a sunday league under 11s team, that's not really a youth career team, so I just want to determine at what level should it be included. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If a youth team is reliably sourced, then it should be included. GiantSnowman 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

youth career know? Govvy (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Govvy: What's the problem? Aleix Vidal has eight clubs only in his youth career (all referenced in the storyline), Tana (footballer) has 11 (one reference in the storyline cites them all)... Don't see any problem in including those when they're correct info. MYS77 ^✉ 15:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My problem is you don't have any notable youth leagues or cups at that level, I really don't see how you apply notability to these teams when they are so low and so young. So how can they be applied to info boxes? One of the players you provided played for UE Valls, and how is that an article? It's a stub without a stub! It doesn't have one citation and the two website links don't work. There needs to be some clarification of what youth level teams can be applied through qualified consensus. Govvy (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A club doesn't need to have an article to be listed in the the infobox. Number 57 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I mean, I am saying that some of these youth teams don't seem to qualify to me for inclusion in the infobox, that they should pass a criteria for inclusion. Govvy (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What it your suggested criteria? Number 57 22:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That sunday league teams should not be included in info boxes, nor youth teams where players are below 14 years of age, a youth career should consist of teams based from registered non-league clubs to top level. Govvy (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I would never agree with that criteria. If it's referenced, if it's correct info, why keep it out? Then let's remove the damn field from the infobox and show nothing to the casual readers. Ah, and all of those references I've told you, Govvy, about Tana and Vidal, are working normally (at least here in Brazil). MYS77 ^✉ 02:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed – I can't see what is gained by excluding teams (for example, Senrab F.C. would be excluded as they are a Sunday league club). Number 57 08:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I am yet to here a reason why those should not be included, makes no sense to me from Govvy... Kante4 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

- I am not talking about in the article, just the infobox, these youth sunday league teams shouldn't be listed in the infoboxes, it clearly says youth career, you don't really have leagues or cups at such a low level, most if not all are playing friendlies, so they aren't youth career clubs. It's clear to me no criteria has ever been looked at here. Govvy (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry mate, seems like only you agree to this criteria until that point. In Spain and Brazil youth teams like this do play tournaments and friendlies. However, I'll wait until a consensus is reached. MYS77 ^✉ 11:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello all,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Thank you, Bowen Bobo.03 (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 11#File:UTA Arad.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 11#File:UTA Arad.png. Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Diary of the season" section in "X in English football" articles

A large number of the "<year> in English football" articles now have a "Diary of the season" section that looks like it has been largely lifted (possibly with some omissions) from Rothmans' Football Yearbook. As such, this is a massive copyright violation and needs to be taken down. I don't have the books on hand ATM (will check on Monday), but my suspicions grew after I saw the first season with this section was 1973-74, corresponding to the 1974-75 (the fifth) edition of Rothmans'. Now the first four editions are horrendously priced on Ebay/Amazon and held by few, in striking contrast to later volumes which can be obtained by just paying two pounds or so of postage (there's a one pence token price). 213.156.121.92 (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Downey

I came across Gary Downey via this question at the Teahouse. The article was tagged with WP:BLPPROD, but I was able to find a single source for Downey's college career. I tried searching for sources using various keywords for his professional career, but came up empty. Would someone from FOOTY mind taking a look at this and see if this person might possibly satisfy WP:NFOOTY or if the article should be AfD'd. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and could not verify that he actually played in a fully professional league like the article claims. If no-one else can verify this, it should be sent to AfD. Joseph2302 08:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The MISL isn't listed as fully pro anyway, but Mr Downey's claim to playing for Philapdelphia Fever and Hartford Hellions isn't backed up by NASLjerseys.com, which carries complete rosters for all MISL teams/seasons. Nor does his name appear on SoccerStats.us. That site isn't complete, but it does carry a list of players appearing in the 1997 USL2 season, which includes 32 NJ Stallions players. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph2302 and Struway2 for taking a look. I tried various combinations of Downey and the various teams he claims to have played for and the only thing I could fine was something for his college team which could be used as source for a mention of Downey in another article, but is too trivial to count towards notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. After some toing-and-froing with maintenance tags, the article has been deleted at the author's request. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cypriot Second Division#Proposed merge with 1967–68 Cypriot Second Division

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cypriot Second Division#Proposed merge with 1967–68 Cypriot Second Division. Xaris333 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Article recreated after being deleted but now under a different name

The article in question is Kuwait Derby Classico, which was deleted after this AfD. Is it still possible to apply for a speedy deletion or does the different name mean that I have to go through the AfD process again? Spiderone 16:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The articles were identical, I've deleted. GiantSnowman 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Side-by-side tables

I wanted to get others' thoughts on (1) the use of side-by-side tables, (2) combined with descriptive text. The side-by-side table format is common for qualifying rounds of international competitions, with the overall table on the left and the match results on the right. And the overall table frequently has text explaining what the various positions in the table mean. The problem with these two features, as you can see from the examples below, is that the sandwiching causes entries to span multiple rows. In one of the examples below, the entry can span four lines, which looks rather unprofessional.
The sandwiching could be easily fixed in one of two ways. We could either put the colour coded explanatory text above or below the table instead of a column within the table (my preferred solution). Or we could move the match results table above or below the table, instead of to the right. Thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

My biggest issue with these is the ability for them to be viewed on both small PC screens and on phone/tablet screens. They do seem to be difficult to read on a smartphone. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It all depends on the width of your screen, but I agree that we are on the limit of what is acceptable. The description about what happens on certain rows are due to accessibilty guidelines as some readers may experience color blindness so we should not use colors without explanatory text. We have tried to keep is as short as possible. The matchresults are there because of history, and we should note that the width of those columns will reduce once matches are played. For example in the first table "11–12 Jun '17" makes the column wider than when matches has been played, like for example "1–1". Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples: 2018 WCQ

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Mexico	10	6	3	1	16	7	+9	21	Qualification to 2018 FIFA World Cup		—	2–0	1–0	3–0	1–1	3–1
2	Costa Rica	10	4	4	2	14	8	+6	16			1–1	—	0–0	1–1	4–0	2–1
3	Panama	10	3	4	3	9	10	−1	13			0–0	2–1	—	2–2	1–1	3–0
4	Honduras	10	3	4	3	13	19	−6	13	Advance to inter-confederation play-offs		3–2	1–1	0–1	—	1–1	3–1
5	United States	10	3	3	4	17	13	+4	12			1–2	0–2	4–0	6–0	—	2–0
6	Trinidad and Tobago	10	2	0	8	7	19	−12	6			0–1	0–2	1–0	1–2	2–1	—

Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Qualification tiebreakers

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	France	10	7	2	1	18	6	+12	23	Qualification to 2018 FIFA World Cup		—	2–1	4–0	4–1	0–0	2–1
2	Sweden	10	6	1	3	26	9	+17	19	Advance to second round		2–1	—	1–1	3–0	8–0	4–0
3	Netherlands	10	6	1	3	21	12	+9	19			0–1	2–0	—	3–1	5–0	4–1
4	Bulgaria	10	4	1	5	14	19	−5	13			0–1	3–2	2–0	—	4–3	1–0
5	Luxembourg	10	1	3	6	8	26	−18	6			1–3	0–1	1–3	1–1	—	1–0
6	Belarus	10	1	2	7	6	21	−15	5			0–0	0–4	1–3	2–1	1–1	—

Source: FIFA
Rules for classification: Qualification tiebreakers

"Major achievements in football by nation" article and table

Hi, I see the articles Major achievements in volleyball by nation and Major achievements in field hockey by nation and I search and did not find something like this of football, do we have some table that count the 5 brazil world championship and 1 gold olympic medal versus the 5 world championship of Germany on men and women editions? and my recomended title to the article Major achievements in football by nation also sound like a lot of work... --Feroang (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I rember i've seen this once for football. Must have been deleted as OR. Nobody compares or ranks teams this way. This template links those articles and has the old football one linked (deleted prod): {{Achievementsinsports}}. -Koppapa (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:S.L. Benfica B managers

Before this escalates (because of P3DRO's lack of knowledge about Wikipedia guidelines and constant disregard for good faith), I want you to see my edit at {{S.L. Benfica B managers}} and tell me if there's anything wrong. SLBedit (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Squad lists

Quick question for all regulars, is there any reason why Football teams don't have a similar self contained squad template similar to that used by American Football or Rugby League? Our own 'template' seems somewhat primitive and unwieldy in comparison with manual fixes for columns etc. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be harder to keep an eye on changes if we had them, as it would be yet another thing to add to watchlists. Unless we semi-protected them all, it would also be an easy way for vandals to get stuff into articles without it being noticed. Number 57 21:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, what's the point of a template which is called only in one place? --SuperJew (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought, it would probably be possible to do away with {{fs mid}} with a bit of code that automatically split it into two columns similar to how {{div col}} works. This would also stop IPs etc messing up the balance of the lists. Number 57 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Deja vu in Caribbean Cup qualification

On Sunday in the 2017 Caribbean Cup qualification third round Group 2 match, Haiti needed a 2 goal win against Saint Kitts and Nevis to finish as one of the best group runners-up in order to advance to the fifth place playoff and keep alive their hopes of qualifying for the 2017 CONCACAF Gold Cup. The match finished 0–0 after 90 minutes, yet because of the CFU's rules that each match has to go to extra time and/or penalties to decide a winner, extra time was played and Haiti scored the two goals they needed to finish above Antigua and Barbuda in the runners-up table to advance to the Fifth place playoff (according to CONCACAF [14]). At least nobody was deliberately scoring own goals like the last time! Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oceania Football Confederation

Founded 50 years ago on this day. Maybe some celebratory edits to improve article? I added List of presidents and removed Israel as a former member. -Koppapa (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Taking a closer look though, the date is unsourced in the article. And OFC's FIFA approval happened on the 35th FIFA congress on 6th June 1966. So the party is already over it seems. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

William Knox

William Knox's known Football League career was from 1925–1927; William Knox's known Football League career was from 1927–1934. Any chance these are the same player? If not, can somebody with Joyce please get a YOB for the later player so we can properly disambiguate? GiantSnowman 20:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The ENFA says they are seperate people and doesn't have a YOB for the man from Douglas Water.--EchetusXe 10:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking! GiantSnowman 18:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Improved Ballon d'Or winners table

I have been thinking of changing the way the winners table looks at the Ballon d'Or article, this old one takes alot of space and it looks disorganized, I usually use the mobile version on my PC, but on both mobile and on desktop, the table looks disorganized:

Year	1st	Club	Pts	2nd	Club	Pts	3rd	Club	Pts
1956	Stanley Matthews (ENG)	Blackpool	47	Alfredo Di Stéfano (ESP)	Real Madrid	44	Raymond Kopa (FRA)	Real Madrid	33
1957	Alfredo Di Stéfano (ESP)	Real Madrid	72	Billy Wright (ENG)	Wolverhampton Wanderers	19	Duncan Edwards (ENG) Raymond Kopa (FRA)	Manchester United Real Madrid	16
1958	Raymond Kopa (FRA)	Real Madrid	71	Helmut Rahn (FRG)	Rot-Weiss Essen	40	Just Fontaine (FRA)	Stade de Reims	23

This is my preview on how the new organized table would look like, cleaner, more visible, and the players names don't have that useless country abbreviation at the end, there is already a flag icon to let the user know where the player is from:

Year	Rank	Player	Team	Points
1956	1st	Stanley Matthews	Blackpool	47
	2nd	Alfredo Di Stéfano	Real Madrid	44
	3rd	Raymond Kopa	Real Madrid	33
1957	1st	Alfredo Di Stéfano	Real Madrid	72
	2nd	Billy Wright	Wolverhampton Wanderers	19
	3rd	Duncan Edwards	Manchester United	16
		Raymond Kopa	Real Madrid
1958	1st	Raymond Kopa	Real Madrid	71
	2nd	Helmut Rahn	Rot-Weiss Essen	40
	3rd	Just Fontaine	Stade de Reims	23

and so on...

I need a confirmation if it's a yes or no, because I don't want to waste my time on this just for someone else to revert the whole thing. TheSoccerBoy (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely like it better -Gopherbashi (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The "useless" country abbreviations are encouraged per MOS:FLAG to avoid accessibility issues. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The second table is a vast improvement. Number 57 10:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the second table looks neater --SuperJew (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I would support the second option. Qed237 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks better. Kante4 (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Another vote for the far-improved second version. Well done! Drawoh46 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I also support the second, improved version. LTFC 95 (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Queens Park Rangers F.C. flag icon's?

You don't normally have flag icons in coaching staff lists, tables, or the board of directors table, I was trying to remove them, but I messed it up in the preview. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Millwall and Orient seem to have them too. Eagleash (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Govvy: QPR already fixed. Take a look at the article and confirm if this is what you guys meant. MYS77 ^✉ 17:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

k, I was trying to take out the whole field earlier, but that works, cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Robbie Keane

Keane's article has had a recent plague of bad edits, his contract hasn't expired yet, yet people have been editing his article to say he has left the club, maybe an admin could semi-protect the article until then, his contract runs till December but actually leaves the club and LA later in the month. Govvy (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Millwall F.C.

The talk page is getting a bit too long, can an admin add an archive bot to it, cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you (or is it somehow protected or so)? Kante4 (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought only admins could add archive bots. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Aleksandar Jovanović mix-up

I've put in a request to have two articles swapped around at Talk:Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born 1985). The players' birth years do not currently match what is in the article title.TheBigJagielka (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also a strange naming convention in Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born 1992 in Niš). Shouldn't it be Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born December 1992)? The other Aleksandar Jovanović born in 1992 was born in July. MYS77 ^✉ 17:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be more appropriate, cities should generally be avoided. Also, since the two article titles were switched, some incoming links may have to be checked. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I've got fixed them all but the 'what links here' pages are taking a while to update so can't be sure. TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added a RM on Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born 1992 in Niš), please give your thoughts on the subject. MYS77 ^✉ 12:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

FC or F.C. ?

F.C. is a redirect to FC.

Both forms are used in the same pages.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

On what page? The FC disambiguation? Directing both to the same disambiguation seems okay. -Koppapa (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess (but it is just a guess) that @Xx236: is referring to the fact that some football club articles have "FC" in the title whereas others have "F.C." But that's because the abbreviation is treated differently in different parts of the world.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Also some are legal names of teams whereas others are shortening or abbreviations. Not to say that this is entirely consistent though. Koncorde (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Gozo F.C. or Gozo FC ?Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

See below, the name is Queens Park Rangers Football & Athletic Club. Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's usually consistent across a league. For example in England they all use F.C. (or A.F.C.) and in Australia they all use FC (or SC). --SuperJew (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This question was raised here a while ago, lots of opinions here, here and here, as it seems. Pretty old, tho MYS77 ^✉ 13:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

List of ___ international footballers born outside ____

There are several examples of such lists:

• List of Albania international footballers born outside Albania
• List of Algerian international footballers born outside Algeria
• List of Wales international footballers born outside Wales

Has there been any discussion as to whether or not these pass the notability criteria for a stand-alone list? Spiderone 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There's also:

• List of Australia international soccer players born outside Australia
• List of Belgium international footballers born outside Belgium
• List of England international footballers born outside England
• List of Scotland international footballers born outside Scotland

The Scottish list was moved in 2009 with a number of WikiProject Football members taking part, given they took part in the move disccusion they clearly didn't feel the article should be deleted, but their views may have changed, so i'll notify the active ones. @PeeJay2K3:, @Jmorrison230582:, @Ukexpat:, @Kevin McE: & @GiantSnowman: It's worth mentioning that the English & Welsh lists have different inclusion criteria to the other five, as the English & Welsh lists include under-21s. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the British lists, these are not all foreign nationals who acquired British nationality - a lot of the older ones are white British sons who were born abroad because their parents were working there, and a lot of the more recent ones are those who were born in Commonwealth countries who moved to UK as children. Where is the significance/notability in that? GiantSnowman 08:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The Algeria list, for example, is mostly just a list of those born in France to Algerian parents. I'm concerned about WP:SALAT here. Spiderone 11:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

South Vietnam and North Vietnam

Ever since I remember, South Vietnam has been considered on Wikipedia as a separate entity from Vietnam, that is, as a defunct team whose records aren't inherited by Vietnam or anyone else, whereas North Vietnam has been considered as a previous incarnation of Vietnam (like the USSR is a previous incarnation of Russia, etc).

South Vietnam is still listed at Template:Defunct national football teams as one of the teams that are "recognised as defunct by FIFA" (along with East Germany, Saarland and South Yemen), and until recently the list of "Former national football teams" was presenting Vietnam as an inheriting successor of North Vietnam and as a non-inheriting successor of South Vietnam (like Germany is an inheriting successor of West Germany and a non-inheriting successor of East Germany).

However, I've found out that someone has edited the latter list, and now Vietnam is shown as the inheritor of South Vietnam instead, while North Vietnam is not shown at all.

South Vietnam participated in the World Cup qualifiers once, in 1974; it also entered in 1978, but "could not compete after being annexed by Vietnam", as the article puts it.

But indeed, FIFA's website attributes South Vietnam's results of 1974 to "Vietnam", using the current name and flag of the nation.

Then there's this document, where:

• a team whose entry for the 1954 qualifications was not accepted is referred to as "Vietnam"
• the team that participated in 1974 is referred to as "Vietnam" as well
• but the team annexed before 1978 is referred to as "South Vietnam", and it is then explained that Vietnam’s entry was not accepted in 1954. South Vietnam was re-annexed by the North on 30.4.1975. South Vietnam entered 1974 and 1978 independently.

North Vietnam never joined FIFA and therefore never entered the World Cup qualifications.

On the other hand, South Yemen is referred to as "Yemen PDR" at FIFA's website (while North Yemen goes by the current name and flag of "Yemen"), Saarland is "Saar", and East Germany is "German DR" (while West Germany is just "Germany").

In the aforementioned document, South Yemen is "Yemen PDR" or "Yemen PDR (South)" while North Yemen is "Yemen" or "Yemen (North)", and at the 1994 section it says: Yemen played for the first time as a united country: Yemen (North) and Yemen PDR (South) had enrolled independently for 1986 and 1990.

West Germany is always "Germany FR" and never just "Germany" in the document, but there it says: Federal Republic of Germany (FRG or West Germany) continued the record of the pre-war Germany with the German Democratic Republic (GDR or East Germany) entering independently from 1958-1990. The reunified Germany continues the record of Federal Republic of Germany while that of the German Democratic Republic closed in late 1990.

And about Saar it says: The Saar territory had been separated from Germany following World War II but rejoined it soon afterwards.

So, while there could be no doubt that Saar, East Germany and South Yemen are indeed recognised by FIFA as distinct teams from the teams they are part of today, that doesn't actually seem to be the case with South Vietnam. Therefore I think that we should present South Vietnam's records as belonging to Vietnam for statistical purposes, instead of what we've been doing so far. What do you think? --Theurgist (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

FIFA state that Vietnam joined in 1964, which would suggest they see the current Vietnam as the successor to South Vietnam. Number 57 17:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Winning FIFA Club World Cup squad templates

I've noticed the existance of the following:

• Template:Sport Club Corinthians Paulista squad 2000 FIFA Club World Championship
• Template:São Paulo FC squad 2005 FIFA Club World Championship
• Template:Sport Club Internacional squad 2006 FIFA Club World Cup
• Template:Manchester United F.C. squad 2008 FIFA Club World Cup
• Template:FC Barcelona squad 2009 FIFA Club World Cup
• Template:Inter Milan squad 2010 FIFA Club World Cup
• Template:FC Barcelona squad 2011 FIFA Club World Cup
• Template:Sport Club Corinthians Paulista squad 2012 FIFA Club World Cup
• Template:Real Madrid C.F. squad 2014 FIFA Club World Cup

(The template of Bayern Munich in 2013 was already deleted)

All of them were created by Mikemor92, and it appears there are no consensus about the subject. I personally think they should be deleted, there's already an article which lists the squads, and I thought these types of templates were only used for national teams.

Should these templates be deleted? I'm asking this here because the São Paulo FC template, for an example, was already nominated for deletion three times, and there were no consensus about it in all of them: 1, 2 and 3. MYS77 ^✉ 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that my objection to deletion here was due to the rationale cited ("unused"). The user also has a history of using the rationale "unused" for any case without applying any thought of whether it should be used and just hasn't been implemented or if it actually shouldn't be used and nominate for deletion based on that rationale. Regarding notability of these templates I'm not sure and would like to hear opinions about it. I'll point out that for international squads at major tournaments (World or Continental Cups) we have templates for all the squads which took part, and also point out that in Australian football we have squad templates for clubs which one the premiership (a knock-out competition after a league season). --SuperJew (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Thank you for your input. I do agree that "unused" is a wrong way of nominating those templates, but if they remain here, shouldn't they be used in all articles linked to it? I mean, Real's template, Barcelona's templates and United's templates aren't even used in the players' articles. MYS77 ^✉ 12:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not notable for me. Should be deleted. Kante4 (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There will be consensus somewhere in the mists of time that these aren't notable for football. It might be used in baseball/basketball articles, but not soccerball. GiantSnowman 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@MYS77: That's an easily fixed "problem". I could do it right now in less than 5 minutes, but I'd prefer not to until the discussion about the notability (as opposed to the usage) is done. --SuperJew (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Not notable why? What's the reasoning? --SuperJew (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Because then we would need one for the CL, EL and so on. There is not one Championship like in NBA and so on... So, useless. Kante4 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I actually mentioned Australian football. I'm not familiar with the case in baseball/basketball. It's quite a vague comment saying there will be consensus somewhere, it's stating objection without any real reason. If there is consensus you know of, I'd appreciate a link, and if not then your own reasoning for notability or lack thereof. What is the difference between soccer and other sports regarding the notability of this type of template? --SuperJew (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

we don't need navbox templates for this. a better method is to just include (and point to) the squad in the parent articles, like 2000 FIFA Club World Championship squads. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@SuperJew: the consensus here is evident. GiantSnowman 16:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, unnecessary. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally kind of like them. They're neat and I like how they are used for other sports. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: No one, apart from Frietjes and ArsenalFan700 have made actual arguments. And none of these arguments relate to the notability or lack thereof of the templates. --SuperJew (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I could say about almost every template that you can just include all of the template on the parent article. For example a club's current squad seems as redundant as these by your logic. The navbox is there to aid navigating between the articles, while at the article, without having to go back to the parent article every time. --SuperJew (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't get so defensive. As has already been explained, there are too many competitions in football for these to be viable (four a season for most teams), and furthermore 'championship winning squads' do not form part of the culture of football. GiantSnowman 17:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not getting defensive, just trying to understand the argument. Sorry, I missed Kante4 comment about having multiple competitions which would need it (only noticed it now). What if we decide only to do it for the highest level a club can get to (namely FIFA Club World Cup, which are the templates we're discussing)? Also, again, what is the difference from national team squads (which have a squad for every country competing in a continental or world competition)? --SuperJew (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WC is every four years. We just simple do not need such templates for Club WC or so which is held every year. Overkill... Kante4 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

And those are only for the World Cup and main continental competitions. We can't make international squad templates for things like the SAFF Championship or ASEAN Cup (Regional cups essentially). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, they should be deleted as I've said before (an actual argument there, SuperJew). Can someone delete them, as we've generated some consensus through here and Mikemor92 (the creator) didn't even come up here to drop some lines about this? MYS77 ^✉ 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Kurtušić

Hi all! Can anyone take a look at this page? It seems to me that this is a major fraud, lots of the informations are unreferenced and false - as a Bastia fan, I can guarantee that all that is said about his 'time spent in Bastia' is absolute nonsense. Any Serbian specialists here who can give us a hint and deal with this nonsenses ? Cheers, Tuttiseme (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

All 5 numbered references are dead. The first leads to a rather dubious website, which I wouldn't advise visiting (not suggesting this was deliberate by any editor). Possibly an attempt at self promotion - see [15] Gricehead (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Dutch users adding the loan sign (→) in their reserve players in the infobox

I don't think this approach is the correct one. I mean, the reserve teams are still a part of the team anyways, and this sign is used to quickly inform that a player is/was on loan to some other club, not to a reserve one. The player is still contracted to, for an example, PSV Eindhoven even when playing regularly for Jong PSV.

What do you guys think of this? MYS77 ^✉ 17:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Should not be used. Kante4 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not? I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but it's been used for NASL indoors players for a while now. GiantSnowman 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It makes sense to me.--EchetusXe 21:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't we normally also add (loan) at the end in case of the actual loan? I believe using just the arrow for reserve teams is fine --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should use it for reserve teams or indoor teams. Reserve teams are still part of the parent club, and indoor teams are from a whole different code of the sport, so neither is akin to a loan and shouldn't have the arrow. – PeeJay 18:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay2K3 and Kante4, only loan stints should have a loan markup. I don't know a thing about indoor football, but reserve teams definitely shouldn't have the loan arrow. They're still part of the first team. Aside from it, taking the good article nominations as a guideline (i.e. Lionel Messi), their stints at the reserve teams (if existent) don't have the arrow. MYS77 ^✉ 19:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea v Tottenham

Is Chelsea F.C.–Tottenham Hotspur F.C. rivalry really notable? I never seen it as a rivalry. Qed237 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See this or this as an example of why. Number 57 13:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not one of the traditional north / south / east / west / dockland derbies (most of which are nothing in contrast to the North London derby and Docklands) and is relatively recent in its "rivalry" status. This is largely down to the fact Chelsea, historically, haven't held a top flight position or a competitive role in British football to build a rivalry around. Like most things football, the habit is to make more of locale and geographic closeness, only as / when two teams are seen to be competing for the same thing year on year. For instance, Man Utd vs Liverpool is a derby / rivalry, but Man City vs Liverpool is not, nor is Everton vs any Manchester team. Koncorde (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Harry Kewell

An IP user removed his fullname Harold Kewell changing it to just Harry Kewell, which I reverted. However, having looked further his fullname maybe Harold Marty Jr. Kewell. Are Sport.de & Sportnet.at reliable enough to make the changed? I'm not familiar with either site, hence I'm asking. Worldfootball.net & Voetbal.com both state the same, but I'm aware there not reliable. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My instinct is to say "no" as the only sites quoting that combo appear to be non-English speaking. That's not to say that they are wrong, just probably one of them is the source for all their data and they're now likely clones. Koncorde (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This SBS The World Game piece about Mr Kewell's retirement has a summary that begins "Born: Harold Kewell to parents Rod and Helen", which is clear as to Harry's name, and names his father as Rod, which makes the Jr. bit pretty unlikely. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. I wonder if the foreign national sources are somehow referring to Marty McFly in some way. I don't know if it was ever a nickname or joke or something. Koncorde (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It would seem he doesn't have a middle name. [16] TheBigJagielka (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is, great help, thank you all. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Worldfootball.net and voetbal.com are clones and Sport.de and daten.sportnet.at, while being different websites, use the same database. 213.156.121.92 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox football tournament/doc change

Can someone take a look at this revision? The template has been altered to include <templatedata> tags but other things were changed too. I'm not 100% sure on what needs changing but at the moment it's not as it should be. TheBigJagielka (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Associação Chapecoense de Futebol

If there are any Admins around, could you please semi protect Associação Chapecoense de Futebol until details emerge about the tragedy. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@JMHamo: not only the club article, but the whole team. GiantSnowman, can you do this, please? MYS77 ^✉ 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably need to have a watch for players' namesake, all Danilo on board, may be. Matthew_hk tc 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sikkim Gold Cup

An other notability discussion.

I just saw that an editor has been creating seasons for Sikkim Gold Cup, which seems to be a regional tournament for a very small region in India.

For example 2016 Sikkim Gold Cup has already been deleted once after a CSD, but a few days later the same editor recreated it again.

Are these seasons notable? Qed237 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I added the WikiProject Football tag to the talk pages when I noticed the changes were made to the infobox template. TheBigJagielka (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably bundle all the seasons into 1 AfD, and then also delete Template:Sikkim Gold Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ya, this tournament is organized by the Sikkim Football Association but it is not their main state cup per say so I wouldn't say it is notable. At most the tournament is notable but not the editions of the tournament itself. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Now at this AfD. Qed237 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What about Gorkha Stadium created by the same editor and the only source (not referenced but listed at bottom of page) hardly seems reliable and does not support facts in article. The only other article created by the editor, Chanmari Ground, is also very problematic. Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The stadium exists, and is used for celebrations it seems. Doub't a team plays there. Not sure about the notability criteria for common places or stadia though. -Koppapa (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stadiums in India should only be notable if they are used for notable tournaments... as far as I am concerned these grounds are not and should be deleted. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice of requested move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Aleksandar Jovanović (footballer, born 1992 in Niš)#Requested move 18 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Fawkner Azzurri

Hi everyone, i recently found out that Victorian State League Division 1 team Manningham United FC formerly Fawkner was called fawkner azzurri at one point possibly arouund the mid 1990's does anyone have any information about this? how long the name change lasted or a logo? I know this is a very niche topic but if you have even a little bit of information it would help me out. GenuineEdits (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a minefield. There is a flowchart detailing the various mergers/demergers among Italian-Australian soccer clubs in Melbourne.[17] It's not a reliable source per se but it will give you some help understanding some of the dates and names. Hack (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Pep Guardiola

Could someone take a look at Pep Guardiola? I just realize that it contained a lot of team information about recent fixtures and I am not sure about notability to write about that for a manager. Unfortunately I dont have time to do it myself. Qed237 (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and removed this, but was twice undone. I also removed the term "most successful" from the lead, but this was also undone, with one editor quoting a source that doesn't back up the phrase - describes him as one of the best, not most successful, both of which are difficult to define. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Switch of national team

Hi everyone. I heard somewhere that if a player has played for one senior national side in friendly matches and he wants to switch national team could not play for the under-21 side of his new national team. An example is Tauljant Sulejmanov who has played two friendly matches for Macedonia national football team and he wants to switch for Albania to play for the Albania national under-21 football team. Is this possible for him, anyone knows this rule of FIFA, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Under article 8 of the FIFA statutes, a player who switches nationalities can't represent their new association in a competition that they participated in with their previous association.[18] Hack (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hack: Thank you for your answer. But when FIFA mention "competition" here it means the season of the competition. Mërgim Brahimi has played for both Albania national under-21 football team & Switzerland national under-21 football team in UEFA European Championship qualifying in two different seasons 2013 & 2015. So Tauljant Sulejmanov could play for Albania U21 in 2019 UEFA European Under-21 Championship qualification. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why we are postulating what might happen. It's not for us to decide - we simply report what reliable sources say. GiantSnowman 20:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: It was just a friendly question, thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that support 1) an intention to change nationality, 2) that he has requested a change of nationality or 3) that this request has been granted? Hack (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not yet I think. Thank you. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Football/Archive 106 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Deasy

I have never nominated an article for deletion but I am not sure Michael Deasy is notable. I suspect article may even be self created. Playing and managing career confined to junior and intermediate level in Ireland. Djln Djln (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 10:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The PROD was removed by the article creator; I have now nominated it at AfD. Jellyman (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Kim Dae-wook

I came across this just this morning as I saw the Club World Cup game. The goalscorer for Auckland City, Kim Dae-wook, doesn't have a Wiki article because he doesn't meet the notability guidelines. Having only participated in semi-pro leagues in South Korea and New Zealand, should an article be created for him just for participating in the Club World Cup or is he still not notable? Adamtt9 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but if he meets WP:GNG then he merits an article. GiantSnowman 20:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Enrico dos Santos

• Enrico dos Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) new article
• Aaron Enrico dos Santos was deleted in March 2016 and is presumably related

There is a fuss at ANI (here) which will peter out shortly. It would be good if someone who understands the topic could comment (here or at ANI?) on whether there is any chance the article should be expanded and kept. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Scrub that. Previous accounts have been unearthed, and it appears that someone with more knowledge of the topic than me offered an opinion last March that the topic is a hoax. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"Superga air disaster" relation with "2016 Eusébio Cup"

Danieletorino2 (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits at Superga air disaster because he thinks that 2016 Eusébio Cup has "nothing to do with the crash", when in fact, besides Eusébio, the 2016 edition was played in honour of the Grande Torino team. The articles are clearly related. In addition, the link to Sauro Tomà in the "See also" section should not be there according to WP:ALSO guidelines. SLBedit (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is your source that the 2016 edition was played because of the crash? This is the same editor that removed Italian youth titles from Bryan Cristante's honours (despite every other player having them) because they were "not notable enough". Now his club's friendly tournament deserves to be mentioned at the end of an article about Superga. Please, try and be a bit more objective. This isn't the Benfica fan website.Danieletorino2 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Official source. Cristante has nothing to do with this (and I don't even remember that). SLBedit (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I have added the link to Eusébio Cup in the article about Grande Torino. SLBedit (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)